I agree, FlemGem, it's definitely ironic...

Polonius as a character's a very fun one, he's bumbling throughout much of the play, with most of the best humor coming at his expense, yet he has those sage words of wisdom...

And then of course there's the meta-theatrical in-joke built into the play when the Players come, and Hamlet and Polonius gets to talking about it and Polonius says he once enacted the role of Julius Caesar--which is often presumed to be a reference to the fact the actor who played Polonius probably played Caesar in that Shakespeare play too.

So there's plenty of fun with him--T.S. Eliot's narrator in Prufrock seems to think he's more like Polonius than Prince Hamlet...so perhaps Polonius is something of centuries-old sort of standard for authors to see themselves as in one way--

They might WANT to be Hamlet, young romantic figures who are legendary and caught up in such a form of angst that it's almost beautiful...but the end up as Polonius--old men blustering on in catchphrases that they themselves don't fulfill all the time.

:)

'he's bumbling throughout much of his life, with most of the best humor coming at his expense, yet he has those sage words of wisdom. . . Duh!'
Know the feeling.

Ok, back to Snowden.

IMHO Snowdon did a great wonderful thing, but wasn't quite a big enough/rich enough/bastard enough man to carry it off, without running to the ends of the earth. Few could take the strain against the CIA/FBI/shitheads.

Ever been chased full-pelt by an organisation? No? I have. (Not CIA, thank the Lord.)
I'll help this guy till his dying day, which may, unfortunately, be too soon.

It's interesting that Snowden scared the shit out of the system. He must have really said something he wasn't supposed to.

I don't know why they're calling him a traitor. Did he "give aid and comfort to our enemies"? Not in my opinion.

How did he not give aid to our enemies, Gunfighter? He let everyone else know of our cyber capabilities and the extent of our intelligence gathering network. Its the equivalent of going to the USSR in the 60s and saying "Oh, by the way, we have 8 moles in the KGB"

Snowden is really a sort of Hamlet figure. Young and angst-ridden; knowing dark truths but not knowing how to deal with them, influential but not knowing how to use his own power; never knowing who his friends are or if he has any at all; a true tragi-romantic figure if I ever saw one.

@ goldfinger0303

On the other hand, he told the American people of the grossly unconstitutional acts against them by their own government. We'll see in due time how much he gave away to the Chinese and the Russians, but what was he supposed to do? There is no way he would have gotten a fair trial here. If he didn't give the Chinese and the Russians anything (or anything of consequence), then what exactly did he give away as far as "aid" is concerned? It's no big secret that America has incredible cyber-warfare capabilities. It *was* a big secret that the American government broke the Fourth Amendment rights of most Americans.

@ FlemGem

I could see the Hamlet parallel, but current geopolitical conditions are a bit more nuanced and complex than medieval Denmark, to be fair.

"It *was* a big secret that the American government broke the Fourth Amendment rights of most Americans"

Please clarify this statement. Telephone metadata is not protected by the 4th amendment and it was no secret it was being collected anyhow. The government is only supposed to be warehousing it so the telcos don't have to. If a number come sup they need to research, they still have to get a warrant from the courts to do it.

Now, if he were to have provided proof that the data was being datamined without warrants, then our 4th amendment rights would have been broken. But no such evidence has been presented and until it is, it is just a conspiracy theory.

as far as the in secret part, I'm not involved in any government security work and even I had a good idea it was being collected. Hell, even your email and social networking isn't safe any more. so they have a bunch of "what number called what number at what time and for how long" evidence that they can't search without a warrant and even though would only tell them who called who when and for how long, nothing at all about the contents of the conversation. They get more out of monitoring your email and sites like this and facebook and the comments on big media news sites and twitter feeds than they will ever get from those phone records.

Naw, ye're a' jist medieval Danes.

@ Draugnar

If he didn't leak anything important, then why does everyone in Washington want his head?

@Gunfighter - if the US government has broken our 4th Amendment rights, then all these technology and telecommunications companies are doing so as well.

They want his head because of the shit we are getting from other countries. He has a list of computers in other countries that are hacked by the NSA and giving us valuable information and espionage capabilities. Switzerland, Hong Kong, China, Russia, etc etc are all questioning us. We've lost any moral high ground we had internationally and our allies will be less willing to share information with us. Washington could give two shits about the domestic repercussions. Its the international ones that will haunt us for a long time.

@Gun - Leaking that info means he could be leaking more to other countries and that he may (as Oblamer claims) have more intel.

Our country has laws to protect whistle blowers and now would be a good time for the Government Accountability Project to ramp up their defense of him using whistleblower protection laws. The NSA broke the law (we honestly knew they were ever since Carnivore was leaked many many years ago) and he should be protected while the heads of the NSA who signed off on this illegal activity (and Oblamer himself) should be prosecuted to make a point to the next folks that Amreican Civil Liberties are not to be disposed of just because you think you can.

@Draug .. what are the odds of that happening?

@ goldfinger and Draugnar

They wanted his head even before he ran to Hong Kong. That would indicate that they indeed give at least one shit about the domestic repercussions.

The damage was done before he even went to Hong Kong, Gunfighter. He revealed most of his information before he went to Hong Kong. Ignoring of course the stealing of government property, breach of contract and countless other violations he would probably be wanted for.

No, the real damage is to our international reputation and prestige. That's what you are seeing now, with Obama's speech in Senegal.

The GAP is already talking about it, so the odds of him getting protection are greater than you think. The odds of the others being prosecutted, not very good.

Why do you think hong Kong/China said "And what's this we hear about you snooping on our systems and hacking us?"

@goldfinger: "We've lost any moral high ground we had internationally"

Yes, but that had little to do with Snowden. And in fact, little with the 4th amendment. It had loads to do with the revelation that the UKUSA is systematically monitoring almost all citizens of the free and unfree world that they can, whilst simultaneously touting their commitment to the right of free speech and confronting abuses of that right. Such hollow rhetoric, it seems.

Besides, how is 'damaging the international relations of the USA' even close to 'aiding and abetting enemies of the state'? If that were the case, most US presidents should be jailed.

If you go to my earlier post, Minister, he aided and abetted the enemies of the US by handing over a list of computers in China that we've hacked. Additionally, none of the other countries would have known about the monitoring had Snowden not done what he did, so it has everything to do with him.

It wasnt the fact that Snowden told them that made them angry. It was the fact the US did it.

And don't you worry btw about your fourth amendment rights being violated by the US government, they arent. The British do that, and then send over all the data to the NSA. Perfectly legal.

I'm aware Minister. But they wouldn't have known the US did it without Snowden, you get what I'm saying? He was an agent that transferred information. We're mad at the agent, they're mad at us. Without the agent, the transfer of knowledge would have never taken place.

Also, I could give two shits about the 4th Amendment rights. As a law-abiding citizen I have nothing to worry about, and I trust the government won't overreach when using the data. Besides, you can't monitor 350 million people. You just can't.

Shouldn't the fact that a whistleblower on egregious violations of personal freedom in the "Land of the Free" had to flee to a who's who of authoritarian states say more about the "Land of the Free" instead of the whistleblower? This seems elementary. A state committed to individual freedom would praise a whistleblower for exposing a corruption of that ideal within its machinations, not hound him to the ends of the Earth.

"Also, I could give two shits about the 4th Amendment rights."

Some of us law-abiding citizens care about our privacy. Fuck us, right?

Here's where I have a problem, Eden. He's not a whistleblower. There were no violations of the 4th Amendment. There were no improper procedures and there wasn't corruption, hence it's not a whistleblower case. The information the NSA has is not anything more than what private companies have already been collecting and handing over to law enforcement officials anyways. If anything, this is a more efficient way of doing it, so the government doesn't have to keep sending in an endless stream of requests.

And the sentence you quoted is my personal opinion, not an argument for the case.

Some people seem to confuse monitoring with restricting. We have free speech. Nobody but ourselves stop us from saying it. We aren't punished for saying it or made to "disappear". We have free speech. Remember that. The fourth amendment wasn't actually broken by any spying (and yes, I know I claimed it was, but I did some thinking on this). It would only be broken if those transmission were intercepted and never made it to their final destinations.

And doh! to me. I said 4th amendment when thaty is First amendment.

There havent been improper procedures. The British handed over the info on law-abiding US citizens precisely like they were ordered to.

Arguably, the 4th amendment would be broken if phone calls were listened in on without a warrant or emails read without a warrant. But the former isn't happeneing according to the leaks and the latter is a more arguable case in that corporate email isn't private anyhow (any company has a right to read your email or monitor your web traffic routed through their systems, they even make you sign an agreement to that effect, at least the big solid companies do).