Edward Snowden, defector [W:139]

[DA60]

What part of 'Until then (supply a link to unbiased, factual proof), we are done on this,'...did you not understand?

Well, I did not even read your post, I just glanced at it, found no link and moved on.

Since you are clearly ignoring my words on this, I see no reason to pay attention to yours.

Let me know when you find that link (that probably does not exist).


And if you are so desperate to debate this - I suggest you talk to alexa.

She seems much more informed about the details of this guy then I am...and she seems just as opposed to the killing as I am.


Have a nice day.

I would like to add one more thing...and this is not directed at any one person in particular.

But to me, ignoring the Constitution, assassinating Americans without trial, locking up innocent people for over a decade, torture, rendition, spying on innocent Americans, studying millions of Americans phone records, bombing other countries, drone striking anyone who the WH wants (and can get to) and so on.

This behavior is, IMO, un-American, inhumane and cowardly.

To violate people's rights because of McCarthyism-style fear and paranoia is reprehensible and childish.

America since 9/11 is becoming a land of bullies and cowards...eager to violate Constitutional and human rights to feel a little safer and justifying it by wrapping themselves in the flag and using words like 'patriotism' and 'duty'.

But there are those of us who believe that the ends don't justifies the means.

For the minute you decide that you must act as cruelly as terrorists to beat terrorists, to abandon honor and the Constitution and the rule of law...they win.

 

[DA60]

Oh well...at least it's not ALL bad news for Mr. Snowden.


'Russian spy Anna Chapman tweets marriage proposal to Edward Snowden'

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/0...an-tweets-marriage-proposal-to-edward-snowden


Maybe this is why Putin wants Snowden gone so badly?

:wink:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I would like to add one more thing...and this is not directed at any one person in particular.

But to me, ignoring the Constitution, assassinating Americans without trial, locking up innocent people for over a decade, torture, rendition, spying on innocent Americans, studying millions of Americans phone records, bombing other countries, drone striking anyone who the WH wants (and can get to) and so on.

This behavior is, IMO, un-American, inhumane and cowardly.

To violate people's rights because of McCarthyism-style fear and paranoia is reprehensible and childish.

America since 9/11 is becoming a land of bullies and cowards...eager to violate Constitutional and human rights to feel a little safer and justifying it by wrapping themselves in the flag and using words like 'patriotism' and 'duty'.

But there are those of us who believe that the ends don't justifies the means.

For the minute you decide that you must act as cruelly as terrorists to beat terrorists, to abandon honor and the Constitution and the rule of law...they win.

Um, DA60 -

We are quite free right now, and (current GOP efforts in their war on women notwithstanding) in many ways we're freer today than we ever have been.

Read that again, DA60 - in many ways we're freer today than we ever have been. I can back that up quite easily, but I want to leave it to you to sit back and consider that statement - not only your arguments against it, but the arguments for it.

When it comes to al-Awlaki, you're familiar with the phrase 'clear and present danger'. So let me ask you give you a hypothetical situation:

You're the president, and it is your sworn duty to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But you believe that assassination of American citizens is never, ever justified, right? So there's an American citizen over there in, say, Nicaragua, who says he's going to build a 'dirty bomb' and explode it in downtown Manhattan - the financial heart of America, and (currently) the financial capital of the world. Or perhaps he says he's going to spread a SARS-like virus around America. And let's say that he's got the professional and logistical wherewithal to make either one or the other of these things happen. So what do you do?

What do you do, DA60? You can't go arrest the guy - Nicaragua says "No, you can't, we like this particular American citizen!" - but this guy has the capability to gravely damage our economy and the stated desire to do so. So what are you going to do, especially if time is of the essence?

You don't have much choice, do you? And that's of course the point. Assassination has been used as long as there's been human civilization - and almost always for ill...but there's that word "almost". How many Americans killed, how much damage to the American economy, are you - the American president - willing to tolerate before you go kill the American citizen (whom you can't simply arrest, remember) who's willing and able to cause the death and the damage?

 

[DA60]

Um, DA60 -

We are quite free right now, and (current GOP efforts in their war on women notwithstanding) in many ways we're freer today than we ever have been.

Read that again, DA60 - in many ways we're freer today than we ever have been. I can back that up quite easily, but I want to leave it to you to sit back and consider that statement - not only your arguments against it, but the arguments for it.

When it comes to al-Awlaki, you're familiar with the phrase 'clear and present danger'. So let me ask you give you a hypothetical situation:

You're the president, and it is your sworn duty to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But you believe that assassination of American citizens is never, ever justified, right? So there's an American citizen over there in, say, Nicaragua, who says he's going to build a 'dirty bomb' and explode it in downtown Manhattan - the financial heart of America, and (currently) the financial capital of the world. Or perhaps he says he's going to spread a SARS-like virus around America. And let's say that he's got the professional and logistical wherewithal to make either one or the other of these things happen. So what do you do?

What do you do, DA60? You can't go arrest the guy - Nicaragua says "No, you can't, we like this particular American citizen!" - but this guy has the capability to gravely damage our economy and the stated desire to do so. So what are you going to do, especially if time is of the essence?

You don't have much choice, do you? And that's of course the point. Assassination has been used as long as there's been human civilization - and almost always for ill...but there's that word "almost". How many Americans killed, how much damage to the American economy, are you - the American president - willing to tolerate before you go kill the American citizen (whom you can't simply arrest, remember) who's willing and able to cause the death and the damage?

For the last time,

do you have a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF that al-Awlaki was 'actively working with terrorists on plans to kill more Americans' (as you stated) when he was assassinated by Obama without trial?

Yes or no?






'It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.'


Harry Truman talking about the Eisenhower administration's embracing of McCarthyism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Critical_reactions

Unfortunately, it works for today as well.


Have a nice day.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

For the last time,

do you have a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF that al-Awlaki was 'actively working with terrorists on plans to kill more Americans' (as you stated) when he was assassinated by Obama without trial?

Yes or no?






'It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.'


Harry Truman talking about the Eisenhower administration's embracing of McCarthyism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Critical_reactions

Unfortunately, it works for today as well.


Have a nice day.

You know what I hate? You're expecting me to go to all the work for you. You're expecting me to post every single link - like where the underwear bomber stated that al-Awlaki told him to bomb the jetliner (but that's now a dead link), that al-Awlaki had a direct operational role in the attempted bombing, and that when he was killed, he was a regional commander in al-Qaeda, the very organization that had of course carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and whatever Flight 93 was supposed to hit on 9/11.

I don't know about you, but when there's an organization that carries out an attack as egregious as the 9/11 attacks, and an American citizen goes and not only joins that organization but becomes a regional commander in said organization...dude, he deserves no more consideration than anyone who had flown out of America to become not just a commissioned officer but a regional commander in the North Korean Army at the time of the Korean War, or went during WWII to go join the Wehrmacht as a regional commander. The fact that he was not firing the guns or thumbing the triggers on the bombs does. not. matter. He willingly, eagerly became a part of the enemy...and as such no longer has any reasonable rights as an American citizen...

...and I really don't think any of our founding fathers would have had the least qualms in having him assassinated if he could not be arrested without starting another war.

 

[DA60]

You know what I hate? You're expecting me to go to all the work for you. You're expecting me to post every single link - like where the underwear bomber stated that al-Awlaki told him to bomb the jetliner (but that's now a dead link), that al-Awlaki had a direct operational role in the attempted bombing, and that when he was killed, he was a regional commander in al-Qaeda, the very organization that had of course carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and whatever Flight 93 was supposed to hit on 9/11.

Are you serious?

Do you even know what 'unbiased' and 'factual' mean?

Let me help you.

'un·bi·ased also un·bi·assed (n-bst)
adj.
Without bias or prejudice; impartial.'

unbiased - definition of unbiased by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


'fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences'

fact - definition of fact by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


And you actually call the director of 'the National Counterterrorism Center' and 'US officials' unbiased sources?

Okaaaaaaaaaaay.



The two working links offer NOTHING but ridiculously biased, hearsay.

So, the answer is 'no'.

You have zero unbiased, factual proof.

Noted.


We are now done.

Life is WAY too short to waste on people like you.


Have a nice day.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Are you serious?

Do you even know what 'unbiased' and 'factual' mean?

Apparently you believe that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is automatically biased, or if they work for an organization you don't like, their word can't be trusted.

I suggest you go check your own biases.

 

[Glowpun]

Hey, you guys have gotten off track. He is to have said "ask for asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy." Let us see. He asked for asylum in Russia, what is wrong with this picture?

 

[repeter]

do you have a link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF that al-Awlaki was 'actively working with terrorists on plans to kill more Americans' (as you stated) when he was assassinated by Obama without trial?

Yes or no?

I'm curious, do you have any sources as to what he was doing when he was killed? I'm no expert, but I don't believe there are many retirees from the terrorism. I don't think anyone would have any reason to believe that al-Awlaki was going to live life peacefully.

 

[alexa]

Hey, you guys have gotten off track. He is to have said "ask for asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy." Let us see. He asked for asylum in Russia, what is wrong with this picture?

No problem at all. He had no idea how extremist the US would be, threatening Ecuador and even demanding EU countries refuse the Bolivian President air space, refuse him needed fuel, necessitating him landing in another country where he was forced to have his plane searched all against International Law and Diplomatic protocols. Now how would the US have acted if someone had 'kidnapped' Obama in this way?

So he had a meeting today with human rights workers and Lawyers and they advised him that there was no way he could safely leave for Latin America which resulted in him being pragmatic and asking for 'temporary asylum'. According to Glen Greenwald most of his files have been released already so he did what he came to do and now is probably in the safest place in the world for him.

Edward Snowden appears at Moscow airport and renews Russia asylum claim

There is no way he would be extradited as Russia does not believe he has committed a crime and he would likely be tortured and possibly even the death sentence so who wants to spend months in an airport - temporary asylum will do him fine till it is safe for him to move. I have heard there is plenty to see and do in Moscow. Iceland has not yet come to it's decision. It may well decide yes when it is safer for him or he may go to Venezuela or possibly an offer yet to come.

 

[DA60]

I'm curious, do you have any sources as to what he was doing when he was killed? I'm no expert, but I don't believe there are many retirees from the terrorism. I don't think anyone would have any reason to believe that al-Awlaki was going to live life peacefully.

Ahhh...no...duh.

What a totally irrelevant question.

What are you suggesting?

That so long as he did bad things and since it cannot be determined that he is NOT doing bad things at the moment, that he should be killed just-in-case?

Btw, the question is rhetorical...I don't really care what your answer is.

No doubt your ego will demand you give one anyway.


Have a nice day.

 

[repeter]

Ahhh...no...duh.

What a totally irrelevant question.

What are you suggesting?

That so long as he did bad things and since it cannot be determined that he is NOT doing bad things at the moment, that he should be killed just-in-case?

Btw, the question is rhetorical...I don't really care what your answer is.

No doubt your ego will demand you give one anyway.


Have a nice day.

I'm suggesting there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was continuing his actions on behalf of Al-Qaeda. By extension, he was an enemy combatant, and a valid target.

I'm looking forward to you demonstrating you do in fact care what my answer is

 

[DA60]

I'm suggesting there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was continuing his actions on behalf of Al-Qaeda. By extension, he was an enemy combatant, and a valid target.

I'm looking forward to you demonstrating you do in fact care what my answer is

I said 'don't really care'...not 'don't care'.


I don't respect you (what I know of you so far) and 'by extension', I don't really care what you think about this.

Bye bye now.


Oh...and have a nice day.

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Cut out the personal attacks, and stick to the topic.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I'm suggesting there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was continuing his actions on behalf of Al-Qaeda. By extension, he was an enemy combatant, and a valid target.

I'm looking forward to you demonstrating you do in fact care what my answer is

what??????

 

[justabubba]

what??????

i would be MUCH more interested in seeing what his evidence of al qaeda affiliation is

 

[ecofarm]

No problem at all. He had no idea how extremist the US would be, threatening Ecuador and even demanding EU countries refuse the Bolivian President air space, refuse him needed fuel, necessitating him landing in another country where he was forced to have his plane searched all against International Law and Diplomatic protocols. Now how would the US have acted if someone had 'kidnapped' Obama in this way?

Obama is wanted by the US government? Where is he hiding?

 

[marywollstonecraft]

i would be MUCH more interested in seeing what his evidence of al qaeda affiliation is

my guess is that this evidence is top secret.

in fact, so top secret that it is only "known" to the person who made the claim

 

[cpwill]

You know what I hate? You're expecting me to go to all the work for you. You're expecting me to post every single link - like where the underwear bomber stated that al-Awlaki told him to bomb the jetliner (but that's now a dead link), that al-Awlaki had a direct operational role in the attempted bombing, and that when he was killed, he was a regional commander in al-Qaeda, the very organization that had of course carried out the bombing of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and whatever Flight 93 was supposed to hit on 9/11.

I don't know about you, but when there's an organization that carries out an attack as egregious as the 9/11 attacks, and an American citizen goes and not only joins that organization but becomes a regional commander in said organization...dude, he deserves no more consideration than anyone who had flown out of America to become not just a commissioned officer but a regional commander in the North Korean Army at the time of the Korean War, or went during WWII to go join the Wehrmacht as a regional commander. The fact that he was not firing the guns or thumbing the triggers on the bombs does. not. matter. He willingly, eagerly became a part of the enemy...and as such no longer has any reasonable rights as an American citizen...

...and I really don't think any of our founding fathers would have had the least qualms in having him assassinated if he could not be arrested without starting another war.

Bingo. Rebellion against the United States of America results in death without trial.

 

[repeter]

what??????

I'm talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki, not Snowden.