Hello Alexander,   
      
    ak>> Anyway, Snowden did his best.   
      
    LL>> Snowden swore a national security oath. Snowden violated that oath   
    LL>> by leaking information to others, ovbiously without authorization   
    LL>> from his superiors. That is called treason, punishable by death.   
    LL>> However, our president, being a nice guy, has promised the   
    LL>> Russians, as well as the rest of the world, that Uncle Sam has a   
    LL>> soft heart, and promised not execute the traitor.   
      
   AK>Freedom has never been archived without treason of the oppressive   
   AK>regime. Because, when fighters for freedom overthrow a legitimate,   
   AK>but oppressive power they commit an act of high treason.   
      
   Jeffersonian violence is acceptable if, and only if, a regime   
   becomes so oppressive that it has lost its legitimacy to govern.   
   By that way of thinking, it is not an act of treason but rather   
   an act of patriotism.   
      
   AK>And naturally, they were often hanged, shot etc.   
      
   Many Americans had that unfortunate experience against the British.   
      
   AK>Lincoln was a traitor for the slaveholding society that brought   
   AK>him up.   
      
   Abraham Lincoln was a vampire hunter in drag.  Yes, he was a she,   
   her twin brother having died in childbirth.  But that's another story.   
   Was Lincoln "a traitor for the slaveholding society that brought him   
   up"?  According to his (her) own words, the issue of slavery was not   
   important to him (her).  At least, not during his (her) presidency.   
   What was important to him (her) was keeping the union together.   
   And that was something he (she) was not able to do, having failed   
   miserably.   
      
   AK>French revolution had executed the king and queen.   
      
   The cake was too dry ...   
      
   AK>No doubt it was an act of treason.   
      
   I'll have you know my great-great-great-grandfather was Victor Hugo's   
   right-hand man!  Oh, yeah.  That was after the king and queen had lost   
   their heads ...   
      
   AK>In other words if the state authority does ugly things it cannot be   
   AK>stopped without treason.   
      
   It is treason only if the parties are not successful in overthrowing   
   the evil regime ...   
      
   AK>Another matter is - who are those people for whom the treason is   
   AK>done?   
      
   People who commit acts of high treason do it because they have   
   something to gain.  Of course, they have much to lose if things   
   do not turn out the way they had planned ...   
      
   AK>If the treason is made for the world it is great;   
      
   Nobody commits acts of high treason for altruistic reasons.   
   Unless they are stupid or retarded.   
      
   AK>if for money, and many people suffered -- it is a dirty trick.   
      
   Why did Col. Qaddafi lead a military coup against the government   
   of Libya?  The people of Libya had suffered for decades under foreign   
   rule.  When Col. Qaddafi took power, the people of Libya celebrated.   
   Was Col. Qaddafi's act of treason a "dirty trick"?   
      
   Don't answer that.  Although it took them 42 years, the Libyan people   
   finally saw the light.   
      
    ak>> The state must NOT have full control of its citizens.   
      
    LL>> That is not the issue. Every state has secrets to keep. Those who   
    LL>> swear a national security oath are sworn to keep those secrets.   
    LL>> Snowden swore a national security oath, and subsequently broke that   
    LL>> oath. Therefore, Snowden is a traitor to his country.   
      
   AK>It depends on the point of view. For some people he is a traitor, but   
   AK>for some he is saving freedom. It can happen that in future an   
   AK>underground resistance and democracy can be one thing. Such things   
   AK>happened in the past. That's why it is an extremely bad idea to   
   AK>create mechanism for rooting out underground resistance completely.   
   AK>Just in case any democratic society must preserve some "woods" where   
   AK>Robin Hoods could hide and fight.   
      
   In a weird way, we should all thank Edward Snowden.  By revealing   
   the scope of the NSA's electronic surveillance, he showed Americans   
   and the world how dangerous such activities can be.   
      
   Sure, the Obama administration has been vilifying Snowden for being   
   a traitor who wants to hurt the United States.  But those same officials   
   have now been forced to acknowledge that public debate on this subject   
   has begun.   
      
   Suppose Snowden had kept quiet.  He would still have his job, making   
   good money, with a warm bed to sleep in after work, in the USA.  Would   
   Americans (or the world) know about the NSA's database of all our phone   
   calls?   
      
   Do  you like the idea that the government gets the authority to keep   
   track of our private communications?  Doesn't matter that we are not   
   terrorists, or suspected of terrorist activity.  Where did the NSA get   
   the authority to snoop on us?  From secret judicial orders issued by   
   a secret court based on secret interpretations of the law.   
      
   Sound familiar?  Yes, I've read George Orwell's "1984" ...   
      
   Yes, my friend, Edward Snowden has performed a valuable public service.   
   It's too bad he will be spending the rest of his natural life in prison.   
   If he ever makes it back to the USA, that is.   
      
    ak>> The state must not have power to suppress all clandestine   
    ak>> activity.   
      
    LL>> Again, that is not the issue. Every state has secrets. And some   
    LL>> secrets must be protected. Especially secrets concerning national   
    LL>> security. Snowden swore a national security oath. Snowden violated   
    LL>> that oath. Snowden is a traitor.   
      
   AK>Snowden defends Holy cow of democracy - freedom, the possibility   
   AK>not to be traced everywhere and every time.   
      
   "Freedom is having nothing left to lose." - Kris Kristofferson   
      
   AK>Without such a freedom, freedom can come to an end at some pretty   
   AK>day.   
      
   Freedom can exist inside, and outside, of prison.  We create our   
   own prisons, every day, in the way we live.   
      
   AK>People don't understand that a free society must imply possibility   
   AK>of resistance.   
      
   Resistance?  What kind of resistance?  The more resistance, the easier   
   to play.  Resistance is, or can be, a way of cheating.  Trumpeters do   
   it all the time.  Especially modern trumpeters.  In olden days, artists   
   such as Al Hirt and Maynard Ferguson would not be caught dead playing   
   one of those horns.  No sirree.  Them guys played on extra large bore   
   trumpets (no resistance) that took massive wind power to play.   
      
   AK>If everything is under control no real resistance can exist - we   
   AK>begin see it in Russia now.   
      
   RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.  YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. - The Borg   
      
    ak>> The state must not develop such technical instruments that make   
    ak>> clandestine activity impossible.   
      
    LL>> The state has a duty and an obligation to do whatever it takes to   
    LL>> protect itself and its citizens in the name of national security.   
    LL>> That includes developing technical instruments that make   
    LL>> clandestine activity possible.   
      
   AK>You probably didn't read the place where I said that there is no   
   AK>guarantee that an oppressive regime cannot hijack power.   
      
   That happened to us from 2001 to 2009 with the GWB regime.  :)   
      
   AK>Well, abstractly, I retell my story in other words, of a movie   
   AK>script:   
      
   AK>The US state security organization has made a robot-terminator   
   AK>who has to kill all the underground opposition and criminals. But in   
   AK>some time oligarchs and moneybags pay some money to elect their   
   AK>candidates for the presidency, senate etc, to make themselves more   
   AK>powerful and rich. People tries to organize resistance, but after   
   AK>coming to power the moneybags order the terminator to eliminate all   
   AK>democratic opposition, and it will be easy done because the state   
   AK>knows all about all and has a necessary totalitarian mechanism to   
   AK>suppress any underground activity.   
      
   Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator) might be interested in playing   
   the lead role.  Now that he is retired from politics, he could make you   
   a millionaire many times over.  Just think of how much you could get   
   for selling the movie rights ...   
      
   On a serious note - Gerry Spence wrote the book on the subject above.   
   Corporations own everything, including the lawyers and politicians.   
      
    ak>> Because it is a matter of democracy survival.   
      
    LL>> It is a matter of survival, not just of democracy, but also of the   
    LL>> human race. Just think what would happen if terrorists had the   
    LL>> means to develop weapons of mass destruction, or even nuclear   
    LL>> bombs. It would be not only bye-bye Moscow, but also bye-bye world.   
      
   AK>Such a spying technology that was disclosed by Snowden doesn't allow   
   AK>to prevent terrors acts! Maximum it can help trace terrorists after a   
   AK>committed terror attack. Or it can provoke a young man to do a terror   
   AK>act and then arrest him and his friends before the attack.   
      
   The order that Snowden leaked dealt with how the secret intelligence   
   court interprets our laws and the Constitution.  More specifically,   
   compelling a Verizon unit to reveal data on the phone calls it handled.   
      
   President Obama does not want a public debate about privacy and   
   security.  How do I know this?  When actual debate took place in   
   Congress last week, the intelligence community freaked out!  When   
   conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats got together and   
   tried to cut off funding for NSA's domestic spying program, coming   
   oh so close to ending it (the vote was 217-205), the White House   
   and the congressional leadership of both parties denounced it   
   almost as an act of treason.  Who voted for ending the program?   
   94 Republicans and 111 Democrats.   
      
   Well, actually, the vote was meaningless in the sense that if it had   
   passed the House, the Senate would surely have defeated the measure.   
   And if the Senate would have passed it, President Obama would have   
   vetoed it.  But the embarrassment of it all was more than enough.  :)   
      
   AK>Terrorism can be killed only the same way how it was born! The US   
   AK>people must understand why Arabs that were so far from terrorism   
   AK>until WWII became so close to terrorism after the war. The reason   
   AK>is simple -- great injustice. So, the remedy against Arab terrorism   
   AK>is justice, not spying on all the people around the world.   
      
   A war on international criminals can be fought.  But never a "war   
   on terror" or a "war on terrorism."  International criminals know no   
   political borders or boundaries.  International criminals do what   
   they do because that is who they are.  International criminals do not   
   believe in justice (except their own kind of "justice").  As such,   
   we owe them NOTHING!  Our job is to hunt them down and make sure   
   they are no longer in a position to harm others.   
      
    ak>> Suppose, the state controls its people to such an extent, that it   
    ak>> knows all people connections. This means that a member of   
    ak>> clandestine organization cannot hide anywhere among his friends,   
    ak>> acquaintances and even people with whom he once had a phone talk.   
      
    LL>> Don't be silly. Maxwell Smart never left home without his shoe   
    LL>> phone.   
      
   AK>I've already said that system is not able to prevent terror attacks.   
      
   No system is able to prevent terror attacks.  Not entirely, anyway.   
      
   AK>So, calling it an instrument against terror attacks is a foolish   
   AK>idea.   
      
   Violence begets violence.  More violence begets more violence.   
   This has always been the case, ever since the beginning of time,   
   or at least since man has walked this earth.  However, every   
   state does have the right to protect itself.  Including harming   
   those who try to harm us.   
      
   AK>If Al Qaeda has a nuclear bomb it will blow it up despite the fact   
   AK>that that Americans are kept under surveillance. The possibility to   
   AK>be tracked after the attack scares them not.   
      
   If al-Qaeda has a nuclear bomb it will take over Mecca and threaten   
   to blow up the black rock.  And then, when the Saudis think al-Qaeda   
   is bluffing, the bomb will be detonated.  And Israel will be blamed.   
      
    LL>> Allowing terrorists and bad guys to run and hide is not an option.   
    LL>> As George W. Bush said, we have a War on Terror to fight! You heard   
    LL>> that? We must make war on a verb! En garde!   
      
   AK>Ha-ha. And he waged war against poor Afghanistan, although Bin Laden   
   AK>was in his cozy sweet home in Pakistan. And Bush declared that Talibs   
   AK>are terrorists although they had never done any terror acts at that   
   AK>time. Actually there were hundreds of terrorists, but then became   
   AK>millions.   
      
   Britons, Russians, and Americans have all gone to Afghanistan.   
   Britons, Russians, and Americans have all returned home with their   
   tails between their legs.  Why is that?  Afghanistan is not so much   
   a country as it is tribal lands run by warlords.  No army can invade   
   and hold a land whose people are not a people.   
      
   Pakistanis and Afghans cross over their border as if it does not   
   exist.  That is the way it has been for centuries.  To them, they   
   are all the same people.  Different tribes, but the same people.   
   Not really Pakistani or Afghan or Iranian, etc.   
      
   Not even Alexander the Great could conquer Afghanistan.  He thought   
   he could, but wound up retreating with his tail between his legs.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)