To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
They're after him because he broke the law and stole state secrets. No one is making the argument what he took wasn't damaging. The government has said as much. What we're arguing is that just because it is damaging doesn't mean that anything unconstitutional is going on. You would see the same reaction if Snowden had stolen the launch codes for a nuclear weapon. Your logic of "because the information is damaging it must be about illegal activities" is ludicrous (and, again, not really based on facts.)
Is this sarcasm or a joke? I could sit down and have a day long discussion with someone about the Game of Thrones books or the TV series Archer, yet that doesn't make them reality. You are drawing an indefensible conclusion that because the United States is going after someone who stole state secrets and broken the law, then that is proof positive they are spying on Americans. You're making the insane argument that because President Obama cancelled his meeting with Putin due to the fact Putin gave asylum to a fugitive from US justice, it can only lead to the conclusion the US is violating the Constitution. And I won't even get started on Congress, a group which debates everything from whether two guys can have sex in the privacy of their own home to whether to issue a resolution congratulating the Little League team in Buttfuck, Idaho on their most recent win.
And for this, we'll go back to the usual - do you have any evidence to support anything you said here? I'll agree damage control is paramount to NSA because some traitor is out there running around with state secrets about how the NSA accomplishes its missions of foreign intelligence and that's not something you want adversaries to have. Everything else you stated is mere opinion (and poorly based opinion at that) that you have not and will not be able to ever produce any evidence to support. You would serve your cause better by just coming out and saying "I hate the US Government" instead of making yourself look ill-informed by making arguments that are....ill informed.
Generally, investigative reporting doesn't have to retract and edit statements they print because they weren't well researched. The earlier linked Washington Post blog didn't even have to investigate much - they just had to read past the headline of the Reuters article they were basing their "article" off of.
Well that's obviously proof positive that the government is spying on Americans. Case closed, right?
That's not the problem at all. Snowden is the one who made the claims that the government is spying on Americans. He broke the law and released classified documents showing technical capabilities the NSA had (minus the slides that showed how they were used of course, since that wouldn't support his cause.) He shouldn't have had any problem gathering the requisite screenshots, e-mails, phone call snippets, metadata, etc. to provide to the Guardian to support his claims. Yet he did not. The NSA director provided a screenshot of what an analysts sees when accessing the metadata database in his presentation at Black Hat. Surely Snowden could have at least done that. But nope. So the onus is on him to provide support to his claims, not the government to provide evidence that his claims aren't true.
I'd be interested to know more about this guy's claims. I'd imagine the government served him with a warrant to turn over any stored communications of Snowden's for the criminal investigation they are conducting. If this is the case, it is a legal search and seizure. We'll see as his case progresses.
President Obama has publicly condemned Russia's anti-gay laws.
President Obama on Tonight Show said:
White House Statement on Putin Visit Cancellation said:
Ok. Your point? The government can legally search and seize e-mail from a service provider when the requisite legal requirements are met. This guy is free to fight them in court, which he appears to be taking donations to do. But if he stores the e-mails, then he can be compelled by law to turn them over. Maybe he should have researched the law a little more and either not stored customer's e-mail or hosted his servers beyond the reach of US authorities if he wanted to provide this service for privacy purposes.
Even cool people are allowed their uncool moments.
Or he could have been served a warrant with a gag order (not required, but not prohibited) since the subject of the investigation stole state secrets and could have easily passed them through his service. There are definitely more possibilities than just "the NSA is recruiting him for wiretapping."
All the clamor for evidence is indeed no red herring. I would imagine were someone to accuse you of murder and the court convicted you without requiring any proof, you would not claim that any demand for proof is a red herring. Snowden made the claim himself that he could wiretap anyone. The exact quote:
Edward Snowden said:
He was already committed to being a lawbreaker. You're contention is the he was ok breaking the law to steal and release secrets showing a capability but wasn't ok breaking the law to prove it's alleged illegal use? Sounds a bit weak to me.
