It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Venezuela, Nicaragua: Willing to grant asylum to Snowden

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Frankly, what I said stands. Until the ACLU or another group generates enough public support via the Governed, then nothing will change.

There are reasons things are secret, classified and need to know. There will always be such things, and not just in our Government. You do not have to approve of such things, nor does the Government have to 'fill you in' on such things. It's clear that many of you think that it's just a cover up, but it's not always the case or so childishly simple.

From my own experiences in the Army and Combat:

There were many things going on behind the scenes and various operations, that had I known about and had fallen prisoner, I could have endangered countless lives, by simply knowing that information. For example there were several CIA guided operations that occurred in Panama during Operation: Just Cause, that I only learned about many years after the fact. Some of those operations my unit supported. Same with ops in other countries.

As for the 'Day to Day' current operations of the various alphabet agencies, and the secret or sensitive information or gathering techniques they employ. I clearly do not have a need to know about them, and neither do you. Because the fact remains that any large or small nation will have people working against it. It was true in the days of Rome and it is true now. It also stands to reason that if secrets and operations were not kept quiet and 'need to know, secret, top secret, and the like,' many lives would be at risk or lost.

So no. It's quite likely the ACLU doesn't have a 'right to know' how the NSA is doing what they were mandated to do by the Government. Not to mention, rightly so, because they would have to pass many background checks as an organization, which would likely be every member; in order to gain access to those materials.

So rather than crying foul, about how the government is 'hiding behind "Classified Statutes." ' Maybe you need to look to forcing the Government to create something like the Inspector General's office that is present in the Military, with Auditory powers and legal teeth to review such things. Rather than saying, "The government keeps hiding behind their rules over official secrets, that are there to protect me."

The laws governing official secrets, classified information and the like, exist to protect you. You may not care for them, but that will not change that fact. That there are problems that exist in how easily Snowden got access to classified information, does concern me, and many others.

You don't have to like the facts, but there they are.
M
edit on 6-7-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)




There is a reason the MAJORITY of Americans view Snowden as a hero and not a traitor. Oh, they must be wrong and don't know what is good for them and that is why they aren't allowed to know state secrets....riiiiigghhhhttttt.

Remember, the first stage of grief is always denial.




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Typical tactic used to deflect away from the issue. The issue here is NOT Snowden.

He is the messenger.


edit on 6-7-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)


Wrong, the issue was and still is, has Snowden committed Treason, the answer is yes.
You are the one back peddling away.

Chain of evidence, look it up.

M.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   




There is a reason the MAJORITY of Americans view Snowden as a hero and not a traitor. Oh, they must be wrong and don't know what is good for them and that is why they aren't allowed to know state secrets....riiiiigghhhhttttt.

Remember, the first stage of grief is always denial.


And which poll are you basing that malarky on?

I've seen polls already, (which I always consider suspect, since they are so easily manipulated, via the Huff Post if you really wanted to know, and no I don't believe they are credible either, ) that indicates that the American People think he is wrong in his actions. Polls are meaningless, polls by political parties doubly so. So where does the 'poll' of yours come from? Because surely this 'majority' of Americans, is not some fanciful self delusion you pulled out of your arse is it? Because from what I've seen of the various "Americans" 'position' on the subject is a very minor and vocal, minority.

I know this because, if it were a real majority of Americans thinking 'alike', we'd be seeing laws and legal challenges raised. Guess what? There isn't enough so called outrage to do so by the Governed Populace, of which the ACLU is a very minor sub group. There is no evidence of that to decry one way or another as to if it's not even slipped the bulk of the governed populace's mind yet, yet. If anything there is sufficient support arising over the Woman's Right to Choose and Minority rights that will make Snowden Inconsequential in the eyes of the Governed Populace. So scream all you want, and cry more, because your so called hero will be a lost footnote in history. Net result, nada.

You want a change, get off your buttocks and make a change; or continue to sob into your pillow how the Government is not respecting the will of the people. Which would be a self delusion on your part. Because the Governed Populace, by their acquiescence or tolerance of the laws; is consent and legally binding. Yes you have a voice, and as such you can try to garner public opinion that something is wrong; and evoke change, in the long run you stand as much chance as success as anyone else. But don't cry when the changes take long to be emplaced, and don't snivel about how unfair it is, when your 'pet cause' goes the way of the dinosaur.

Speaking of Dinosaurs, and your 'first stage of grief' comment.... I take it this is something you are self projecting on to me? This _Denial_. This is coming from a man (I presume you are male, forgive me if you are not) who has a failed politician as his avatar. Ron Paul, retired, did not rise above the office he held for way too long. He and his son, are not a viable force in society or in politics, and his words only seem to matter to his/their shared cult of personality... much like Sarah Palin.

So take your cult of personality worship and ride it out as long as you can; because like Palin's career in politics, that road too shall end.

M.

edit on 6-7-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-7-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   
A story from ABC news has some possibilities about how Snowden could get out of Russia.

Commercial flights or private.


The only "safe" commercial flight across the Atlantic -- one that would avoid U.S. extradition treaties -- is to Cuba. Cuba has an extradition treaty from 1904, but the Castro government could chose to ignore it.

From Havana, Snowden could connect to Caracas, Venezuela, or Managua, Nicaragua.

If he could get a valid travel document from either country in time, Snowden could take Saturday's 2:05 p.m. flight to Cuba. There are two connecting flights to Caracas on Sunday.

Is he on the way ?

then;

There is also the private-flight option. Reports last week quoted the cost of a private plane to Ecuador to be more than $200,000 on one of the few private jets that could make the trip without refueling. Similar flights to Venezuela or Nicaragua would presumably be only a bit less.

But even if he does get on either of those flights, there is also the question of air space -- especially after the incident involving the Bolivian president's plane. Would European countries or the United States deny a plane carrying Snowden to fly over their territory or force it down?


Snowden

Snowden reportedly had lawyers with him paid for by wikileaks.

Why hasn't wiki got him to a safe place yet ?

Or have they?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Moshpet
 


What information did he give out? People keep repeating this, however there is no there, there. It's just a deflection away from the importance of what he has revealed.

Classic tactic to focus on the source instead of the information.


He only confirmed what those of us who have been on the Internet for 20 years already knew.

Back in the 1990's, it was common knowledge that the UK fibre-optic network took a "detour" to get to Cheltenham: farm4.static.flickr.com...
We could only guess what that was for.

Then there was James "Kibo" Parry, who would appear on any USENET discussion group as soon as you mentioned his name: en.wikipedia.org...
How was he able to read every single USENET discussion group for the word "kibo", when just reading just a single message could take a minute, and there were hundreds of thousands of messages a day?

But these agencies have a tradition that no-one squawks about what they are doing. That's what got them so riled. It wouldn't have mattered if he had published a circular updating the daily lunch menu. That would have still have broken the tradition.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Quite a story here with lots of polarized thoughts. With all this talk about how the NSA is within their legal rights to do so.

I remember after 911 the build up to the Patriot act was all in the heat of the retalitary moment. I also remember hearing from various congressmen who stated that they wold never have enough time to read an entire act before voting on it. Something to the effect that they would just spend all their time reading bills and acts and never do anything else. Wow quite a price to pay, giving up your 4th amendment and all, given that such a massive Act with such far reaching implications would come down to not even having been fully read. Crazy. So in the future if any corrupt gov. wants to destroy your constitution, all they have to do is bury the provisions deep in some long winded babbling work of literature?

Could it not be suggested that the process that led to the passing of the Patriot Act was done so illegally. Given who was at the helm and all the Swiss cheese holes in the Official Story. No weapons, and all the other flat out mistakes with "poor intel" that Administration supposedly made. Knowing what we know now how could they blame intel? Ha, haa.

How can the process be constitutional if they didn't even read all the Act? Why are not smart folks researching that process to have it repealed. That whole 911 affair was the beginning of the end. If there is at least the tiniest shred of doubt in the legal competency of that Administration could not some legal arguments be made with how the passing of Patriot Act was unconstitutional and treasonous in and of itself?


edit on 7-7-2013 by sparrowstail because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2013 by sparrowstail because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
USA is becoming a police/big brother state. Only whistleblowers like Snowden can slow it down. When we use the legal means with lawsuits and with elections...well we see what that accomplishes....to little to late. Not saying that we shouldn't do that. We absolutely should, but the playing field is not even. It's stacked against us and for the NSA, powers that be and corporations. That is way it's imperative for the Snowdens of the world to come forward and even the field a little.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join