Drew Phipps Wrote:Well, he is alive. But he isn't free.
He's freer than he would be in the gulag archipelago of US black sites he would have disappear into if he'd stayed. He still has a voice.
I think the USG would never allow him to come to trial - as the evidence and discovery would be too damaging to the US - or the entire proceedings would be secret and thus show the US to be what it is - a police state. Were Snowden to fall into US 'hands', I'm afraid the best he could hope for would be permanent detention without being able to be seen or heard - and that likely means either solitary confinement or the American Gulag. I'm personally surprised that no general outcry has been heard over his passport being invalidated. He has not been tried and I see no legal basis for taking away his passport. If it can happen to him, it can happen to any American - and all should worry. Even if Brazil grants him asylum, I don't see how he will get safe passage from where he is to there...but perhaps Russia would help secretly in moving him. This is a very strange saga that is far from over. Sadly, I think the USG will try to assassinate him - of course making it look like some other event and motive caused the death. Even though he can do little further harm, they want to send a message to anyone else thinking of doing the same...... Everything changed for the worse [was already very bad!] on 9-11-01!
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
The US government is charging Snowden on the basis that it is still a credible Constitutional, democratic government. So the charges only have bite if Snowden betrayed and violated such a government. In my opinion the US government doesn't have any right to contend that and it is the government itself that is more guilty of what they are charging Snowden with. The true picture is Snowden has called the bluff of a criminal government that has used criminal and deceptive means to take power and commit non-democratic actions. It's basically the crooks beating-up a person who is brave enough to give the transparency that government was denying to the people. Why we should abide and pay for this despicable travesty is an outrage and shouldn't be tolerated by any democracy upholding public.
The government is not require to litigate its legitimacy, or lack thereof, in a criminal prosecution. Here in Texas we had a whole slew of characters claiming that the State had no authority over them, since they were citizens of the (previously existing) Republic of Texas. We had "lawyers" (certified by the Republic of Texas) representing people accused by the State, "people's judges", whole nine yards. None of it worked, nor should it.
The government rules by the consent of the people. Whether you like it or not, the overwhelming majority of us consent to be ruled by our elected officials, and that consent binds everyone, even dissidents, who choose to remain here. We further chose to change our government periodically by elections (as warped as that process is). The alternative is gunplay in the streets.
Let's do something more constructive than deny that the government has the right to accuse, prosecute, and jail people who break the rules. Let's change the rules we don't like, refuse to vote for the crooks, and speak our minds when we catch them being crooked.
Which is, in this case, really, just a technicality that keeps the government from having to answer to what I wrote. There's no doubt the government has committed serious crimes like 9-11 that aren't comparable to Texas Republic characters. This has grown in direct proportion to the creation of CIA and the Kennedy Assassination. In fact, it could be said those Texas Republic hold outs are similar to the reactionary extremists behind the politics of those government crimes.
Sorry but that sounds like arguing rhetoric or technicality against the facts. The US government is supposed to practice check and balance. An honest look at that government would show a serious gap has occurred between the governed and the governing that has been greased by corruption and abuse of power. Actually a majority believe JFK was murdered by conspiracy, they just have an intestinal fortitude problem when it comes to demanding government accountability for that.
Sorry Drew but with this much contempt and corruption this is hardly the time and place to be heralding the government's right to prosecute. It would be more useful if that prosecution were directed towards the government criminals who are now farting in the face of the public and law with growing impunity. Tell me, how does Clapper getting away with lying to Congress and you endorsing going after his brave exposer Snowden jibe with all this? They've broken the deal. Americans have zero obligation to uphold their end. In fact, Americans have a responsibility to answer the criminal contempt of our government.
I don't think Clapper should get away with lying to Congress, any more than I think Snowden should get away with his crime. A government of laws, not people, should mean that everyone is equally accountable. I know that works a lot less well in practice, than in theory; and I'm especially outraged by the socio-economic disparities involved in the criminal justice system, but that doesn't mean its time to raise the barricades. Or give up.
Drew Phipps Wrote:The government rules by the consent of the people. Whether you like it or not, the overwhelming majority of us consent to be ruled by our elected officials, and that consent binds everyone, even dissidents, who choose to remain here. We further chose to change our government periodically by elections (as warped as that process is). The alternative is gunplay in the streets.
Let's do something more constructive than deny that the government has the right to accuse, prosecute, and jail people who break the rules. Let's change the rules we don't like, refuse to vote for the crooks, and speak our minds when we catch them being crooked.
Drew, I wonder how much you understand the concept of deep politics, and just how little any of that stuff you wrote about actually exists (or matters) in the real world.
"We" voters don't choose much of anything. Voters are like those people you see standing at crosswalks pushing the button trying to make the lights change. In most places today, those buttons aren't hooked up to anything. The streetlights are changed by a computer system based on traffic patterns. Our "democracy" or "republic" is the same way. Elections give people the illusion that they have some power, but no matter who wins, it's business-as-usual.
Yeah, I think Drew is making a stretch giving equal value to Snowden and the WMD government. I think the people might forgive Snowden for what he did. Methinks perhaps Drew is protecting his occupation as a lawyer in his public postings. The value of Snowden exposing what the government has been going to illegal lengths to conceal is much more valuable than any meaningless law. The people Drew is referring to are the same mass of goofs who abide the lies about the Kennedys' and voted the war criminal Bush into power for a second term. We actually are talking about law here. Just maybe not the law they were thinking of and using for their self-serving purposes...
I do understand completely the concepts of deep politics and deep government. The forces that underlie our society can appear powerful and malignant. I also understand that the legitimate tools that we still have in our democracy are sufficient to combat the excesses and injustices that we see on a daily basis (just as the Founding Fathers believed), unless we just give up.
It's true that I have a lawyer's viewpoint of the law. I have the honor and privilege to fight for the underprivileged and powerless every day in the courtroom. I get to see up close, how a little bit of effort (or a lot of effort) can actually improve not only one person's life but, from time to time, the overall functioning of the bureaucracy that is the criminal justice system.
One of the personal dangers of looking for "hidden powers" is that the seeker begins to feel powerless. Another danger is that the seeker feels "enlightened" and somehow better than others who don't possess the hidden knowledge. Either way, you get the same sort of fundamental disconnect from society that prevents you from effecting a public change in a democracy. And also that same fundamental disconnect from the mass of other people, is what allows some people to take advantage of others.
It's not sufficient merely to post messages on a forum. It's not even enough just to tell people that their "buttons" aren't working. It should be part of your job as a person to teach others how to cross the street. You won't be able to do that if you believe that you are powerless, or if you believe that other people aren't worth saving.
Magda Hassan Wrote:I'd agree with you Drew that people have more power than they realise but if only they'd exercise it more.
That, of course, is the problem. The need for an independent and objective press/media is paramount. But that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon, as corporate news media have long been fully integrated into the go nowhere democratic "shadow-play" system of control.
Keeping people dumb and uninformed is the task of todays MSM. More's the pity.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
