Harleyman Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Perhaps our American friends could answer this. Isn't it considered aiding and abetting if you fail to report a crime in the US (a crime itself)? If so... He is therefore a villain if the secret services have acting legally because he has made a false allegation and betrayed his oath. But, if the secret services have acted illegally, he must be consider a hero for doing his duty. Why not look beyond and try and see the big picture. Snowden is aiding and abetting the enemy..... the enemy being in this case groups like Al Qaeda. It wont happen though but if it did and the NSA were ordered to cease all monitoring of private correspondence then Al Qaeda would be more than happy. The weak link amongst terrorist groups is their vulnerability to having their net and phone correspondence becoming knowledge to security agencies. There are also those susceptible to being drawn into terrorist activities by being brainwashed by the various web sites these groups put on the net. Invariably as it always happens the rest of us pay for the crimes of the few and if it hasnt become obvious since 9/11 then it should have. There's no price too high to pay if it stops another 9/11 or something even worse from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 There's no price too high to pay if it stops another 9/11 or something even worse from happening. The founding fathers would be turning in their graves to read that. You couldn't really have said anything more antithetical to the ideals upon which your country was founded even if you tried. You've got it completely and utterly wrong. You might as well completely abandon the principle of the security services needing to have probable cause to conduct a search. Why not just let them into your house to look under your bed and make sure your wife and kids aren't terrorists in disguise, you've got nothing to hide right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Why not look beyond and try and see the big picture. Snowden is aiding and abetting the enemy..... the enemy being in this case groups like Al Qaeda. It wont happen though but if it did and the NSA were ordered to cease all monitoring of private correspondence then Al Qaeda would be more than happy. The weak link amongst terrorist groups is their vulnerability to having their net and phone correspondence becoming knowledge to security agencies. There are also those susceptible to being drawn into terrorist activities by being brainwashed by the various web sites these groups put on the net. Invariably as it always happens the rest of us pay for the crimes of the few and if it hasnt become obvious since 9/11 then it should have. There's no price too high to pay if it stops another 9/11 or something even worse from happening. The slaughter of 9/11 is repeated on a daily basis in parts of the the world where totalitarian, undemocratic and corrupt regimes rule. Don't be so quick to give up the hard won freedoms that were paid for with many more lives than those lost during 9/11. It is false security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 The founding fathers would be turning in their graves to read that. You couldn't really have said anything more antithetical to the ideals upon which your country was founded even if you tried. You've got it completely and utterly wrong. You might as well completely abandon the principle of the security services needing to have probable cause to conduct a search. Why not just let them into your house to look under your bed and make sure your wife and kids aren't terrorists in disguise, you've got nothing to hide right? Gross exaggeration to the point of the ridiculous isnt a meaningful counter argument. It's kind of silly to imagine how the founding fathers with their 19th century mentalities in a 19th century world would have reacted to present day terrorist activities but if it were possible they would have taken drastic measures to make sure it didnt happen even to the point of amending the constitution or do you imagine they would have just acted like silly twits and done nothing? Jefferson said " the price of freedom is eternal vigilance' that also meant defending against enemies foreign and domestic. The key word in that sentence being "vigilance" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Gross exaggeration to the point of the ridiculous isnt a meaningful counter argument.Sorry, but it's the only way to get you to respond at all because you don't normally have the guts to actually respond to me when I make a sensible rebutall of your points or ask a good question, so I have to resort to hyperbole. It's kind of silly to imagine how the founding fathers with their 19th century mentalities in a 19th century world would have reacted to present day terrorist activities but if it were possible they would have taken drastic measures to make sure it didnt happen even to the point of amending the constitution or do you imagine they would have just acted like silly twits and done nothing?Under no circumstances whatsoever would they have made it legal for the government to spy on any of its citizens without probably cause. Do you really contest that? They were very adamant about that, it was much more important to them than preventing a few deaths. They would have held that the freedom of millions is definitely more important than the lifes of a few 10s of hundreds. If the founding fathers really though that preventing a few thousand deaths was more important than the freedom of the people then they would never have declared independence and started the revolutionary war. Jefferson said " the price of freedom is eternal vigilance' that also meant defending against enemies foreign and domestic. The key word in that sentence being "vigilance"Seriously? You've chosen that quote? If Jefferson said that he was almost certainly talking about the government. He was saying you have to carefully watch your government and make sure that one body never gets too much power. He would absolutely have opposed the amount of power the NSA currently has, it is very dangerous to freedom. You have completely misinterpreted him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 The slaughter of 9/11 is repeated on a daily basis in parts of the the world where totalitarian, undemocratic and corrupt regimes rule. Don't be so quick to give up the hard won freedoms that were paid for with many more lives than those lost during 9/11. It is false security. I remember years ago when you traveled by air you checked in your bags at the airline counter, they gave you a ticket, you went to the departuer lounge accompained by friends or family there to see you off and that was it. When you had to go into a public building you didnt have to empty your pockets and go through a scanner. We've all lost freedoms and personal privacy we took for granted but if it means I'm guaranteed a safe flight then what price is too high? I loathe as much as the next person what has happened but we live in a sick often violent world that has also become a global village Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Q: which is the safest airline on which to travel, the one that takes most care to bar suspicious travellers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Q: which is the safest airline on which to travel, the one that takes most care to bar suspicious travellers? No. It's the one with the strongest safety record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 No. It's the one with the strongest safety record. And its name is...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Sorry, but it's the only way to get you to respond at all because you don't normally have the guts to actually respond to me when I make a sensible rebutall of your points or ask a good question, so I have to resort to hyperbole. Under no circumstances whatsoever would they have made it legal for the government to spy on any of its citizens without probably cause. Do you really contest that? They were very adamant about that, it was much more important to them than preventing a few deaths. They would have held that the freedom of millions is definitely more important than the lifes of a few 10s of hundreds. If the founding fathers really though that preventing a few thousand deaths was more important than the freedom of the people then they would never have declared independence and started the revolutionary war. Seriously? You've chosen that quote? Jefferson was talking about the government when he said that. He was saying you have to carefully watch your government and make sure that one body never gets too much power. He would absolutely have opposed the amount of power the NSA currently has, it is very dangerous to freedom. You have completely misinterpreted him. He would have also possibly opposed the gathering of information by banks, credit rating agencies and consumer marketing research companies who have been doing it for decades so what's the point? I think Jefferson would have been capable of adapting to any particular circumstance that threatened his country. He would have been horrified at the Pearl Harbor attack and 9/11 and demanded to know why it had been allowed to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.