Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.
IainB:
Still on the subject of potential pardon for Snowden: I had an email from DemandProgress.org that reads:
(Includes two embedded links to donations page.)
Dear X,
Edward Snowden is one of the most important whistleblowers in American history.
Snowden's leaks about the far-reaching NSA surveillance led the agency to limit its bulk collection of millions of Americans' phone records.1
But Trump and his CIA director have already said they consider Snowden a traitor. And since Snowden is currently living in exile in Russia, he'll be at the mercy of Trump's buddy Vladimir Putin.
With less than 30 days left before Trump's inauguration, Snowden's time is running out.
Will you chip in $5 to help call on President Obama to pardon Edward Snowden before he leaves office?
The U.S.’s top lawyer, Eric Holder, has said that Snowden's leaks were a "public service."2 In an interview, he recognized that while the leaks were technically illegal, they prompted an important debate.
In less than 30 days we will inaugurate a president who has said Snowden is a traitor.3 Trump's pick for CIA chief agreed, saying Snowden should be brought back to the U.S. and tried for treason.4
Donald Trump has said that he wants to have the power to spy on his political enemies.5 It's only because of whistleblowers like Snowden that we, the American public, have any real chance to stop him.
We're calling on the Obama administration to pardon Edward Snowden before Inauguration Day. Will you chip in $5 to help free Snowden?
Thanks for standing with us,
David Segal, Demand Progress
DONATE
Sources:
1. NSA ends bulk collection of US phone records, Al Jazeera, November 28, 2015
2. Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed 'public service' with NSA leak, The Guardian, May 30, 2016
3. Ibid.
4. Benghazi Investigation and Hillary Clinton's Emails, C-SPAN, February 11, 2016
5. Donald Trump’s most chilling comment on the DNC hack had nothing to do with Russia, Vox, July 27, 2016
PAID FOR BY DEMAND PROGRESS (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Join our online community on Facebook or Twitter.
You can unsubscribe from this list at any time.
_________________________
--- End quote ---
Embedded in the email is a little box that says:
Obama has less than 30 days
lo pardon Edward Snowden.
Otherwise, Snowden could be
forced to live the rest of his life
in exile—or worse. Will you
chip in S5 to help call on
Obama to do the right thing
before Inauguration Day?
I'll donate
_________________________
--- End quote ---
So one can make a donation at the donation links to the actblue.com website, if one would like to help.
From what is mentioned on that website, I'm not sure, but it seems it could be a general-cause donation site, possibly with "Democrat"-inspired ideals - though I could not see that it specifically claims to be such.
That might, however, explain the curious gratuitous line in the body of the email from DemandProgress.org:
____________________________
"...at the mercy of Trump's buddy Vladimir Putin..."
____________________________
--- End quote ---
It beggars belief that, in requesting $donations for the general cause of Snowden's legal aid, the request would be couched in such terms as to include such a deliberate, gratuitous innuendo regarding the president-elect, thereby risking potentially provoking an adverse reaction and a withholding of funds from the human majority - the "basket of deplorables" - who voted for him.
From experience of having done quite a few large contracts for the fund-gathering arms of large international charitable organisations (including oxfam.org, lepra.org.uk, orderofstjohn.org), I learned two overlapping cardinal rules (and principles) that they all follow:
* never publicly discriminate amongst nor stigmatize one's donors - i.e., all donors are welcome and all donations are gratefully received.
* equi donati dentes non inspiciuntur (Latin) - translation: "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth".
Since horses' teeth grow over time, checking their length is a way of gauging old age, and therefore a sign of mistrust towards the giver. Never question the authenticity of the donation or the person making the donation.
_________________________
Thus, whilst many people reading the request for donations might want to donate to Snowden's fund, I could imagine that many potential $donations might be withheld simply because the donors could have been put off by the political bigotry implicit in that gratuitous line about Trump. Goodness knows how many thousands of dollars in withheld donations that single line could have cost the cause.
Go figure.
Talk about cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. It seems cretinous to me, but then I never could understand the divisive, partisan and antithetical dichotomy apparently created by and seemingly fostered by American political camps, when we are all brothers under the skin.
40hz:
Thus, whilst many people reading the request for donations might want to donate to Snowden's fund, I could imagine that many potential $donations might be withheld simply because the donors could have been put off by the political bigotry implicit in that gratuitous line about Trump. Goodness knows how many thousands of dollars in withheld donations that single line could have cost the cause.
Go figure.
Talk about cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. It seems cretinous to me, but then I never could understand the divisive, partisan and antithetical dichotomy apparently created by and seemingly fostered by American political camps, when we are all brothers under the skin.
-IainB (December 23, 2016, 05:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
Although I think the world of you and enjoy reading your well-reasoned posts, I'm going to have to say you're speaking so far outside the current reality of the United States of America on December 23. 2016 that I'm going to have to respectfully say you're either completely blind to the current political clime within this country - or you're indulging in wishful thinking. Because the United States is a deeply divided country right now, when it comes to our national identity, our politics and our Weltanschauung. And it's gone long past the point where appeals to 'all being brothers under the skin' is going to fall on anything other than deaf ears. Especially in the halls of power where it might have made a difference if that opinion might be embraced.
Suggestion? Don't hold your breath. It is now officially an "us or them" situation. Our halls of power are not interested in compromise. They've made it abundantly clear with the constant refrain given via tweets and Facebook comments over the last two months: "You lost snowflake. So suck it up, buttercup!"
The U.S. is at one of those pivotal points in its short history. And whichever way it goes is not going to be decided amicably. You cannot reach consensus among "men of goodwill" when such men of goodwill are conspicuously absent from the debate.
What you're seeing in the U.S. is an attempt at an "power grab" that's unprecedented in scope. Some would argue (with justification) that the voiced contempt on the part of the emerging political leadership for legal process, common decency, and even intelligent reasoning or established facts (i.e. the "post-truth" world some in power have publicly stated their admiration for) has more in common with a coup d'état than an orderly transition of political power.
So while it's fine to scold an organization for taking a political swipe while asking for donations, I think it's gone long past the point where that is going to influence anybody who would have considered contributing anyway. And that swipe was far from gratuitous.
Welcome to America! It's going to get very interesting next year. Grab some popcorn and get ready to watch the fur fly.
---------------------
This article might make for some interesting reading for you. It's pretty much maps out what the actual majority in this country are realizing has become a major problem - as well as what needs to be done in order to deal with it.
IainB:
":...you're either completely blind to the current political clime within this country - or you're indulging in wishful thinking. ..."
_____________________________
-40hz (December 23, 2016, 09:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, I think you are probably correct in that I am indeed arguably "...completely blind..." regarding the US political climate. I just don't understand it - never have really. It all seems so irrational - actually, "moronic" is the term that probably best describes it from my perspective. I detest that sort of behaviour from otherwise apparently intelligent adults, though I do understand (from observation) that not all such people are necessarily able to reason.
I have always been politically agnostic anyway - and that is regarding NZ and UK politics also. Most politics seem to me to be a farce - or at least, they would be a farce if the protagonists weren't so damn invested of themselves in what was going on. The absolute antipathy between the US groups seems to be almost palpable - it seems to be pure hatred/retaliation for real/imagined wrongs, at times. How could that be "healthy" by any definition? "Never mind the argument, feel the hatred" - sort of thing.
I saw a cartoon the other day that compared the recent US election to a choice for voters between using one or the other revolvers of the two candidates to play Russian roulette, with the difference that the Trump gun was loaded with only 3 live rounds and the Clinton gun was loaded with the full 6 rounds. I thought that probably could have summed up the dilemma faced by voters pretty well, though I don't know whether it was a fair/accurate comparison.
Certainly, you would seem to be correct that "...men of goodwill are conspicuously absent from the debate", except that it seems to be no longer a debate but violent intransigent disagreement bordering on open fascism, at times.
Either way, it would seem to be a mistake to mix political bigotry up with begging, if indeed the objective were to fill the begging bowl with as many $donations as possible. Any fule kno dat.
CWuestefeld:
It is now officially an "us or them" situation. Our halls of power are not interested in compromise. They've made it abundantly clear with the constant refrain given via tweets and Facebook comments over the last two months: "You lost snowflake. So suck it up, buttercup!"
-40hz (December 23, 2016, 09:18 PM)
--- End quote ---
You may be right, but your reaction to IainB's comment is making the situation *worse*.
There are many of us who were horrified by both major candidates (witness the "never Trump" movement"), and I think that for many of such people, we'd *like* to be united on the side that supports Snowden. But as IainB demonstrates, trying to tie that support to support of the "blue team" really does keep many of us away. That's driving a wedge deeper, preventing those of us who disliked *both* the status quo and Trump, from uniting under a common flag.
40hz - your reply seems to assume that we must maintain the current boxes that each tribe wants to draw, and that any resolution must be on those terms: one tribe must defeat the other. I'd much rather see the definition of those boxes be changed significantly, so that I can support the kind of human rights that Snowden's supporters favor, while at the same time working against much of the crap that has become institutionalized in Washington today. I'd like to get there without Trump, but I also want to get there without Clinton - I want a new tribe that can take the best ideas from both.
But IainB's quote shows that there's a significant faction who won't have it that way, we must keep the existing tribal structures, and if we're not with them we must be against them.
IainB:
Yes, as @CWuestefeld seems to suggest, the construction and maintenance/perpetuation of the entirely artificial antithetical divide doesn't have to be tolerated/accepted or "bought into" by the people - that would certainly not have been the purpose of the plebiscite - people were not being asked to vote for that, nor would they probably have imagined that they were voting for such a negative and nonconstructive end.
At best the current situation would seem set to hinder the progress towards the peaceful completion of proper democratic due process, and at worst it's going to risk potentially fomenting unrest and further antithetical division. Sure, maybe the latter might be a deliberate and ulterior unscrupulous objective for some in the game, and if it is, then it certainly seems to be succeeding in tightly winding up an awful lot of people and even apparently inciting them toward violence, but that's another matter - one cannot control events, but one can control how one responds to events. One does not have to let other people wind one up to the point of becoming a hothead where one could even consider committing violence towards one's fellows who have a differing point of view - if one doesn't want that to happen.
Either way, whilst things like the Snowden legal aid fund are apparently being misused as a sort of political football by proponents of one side of the divide or the other, then an unknown number of the silent majority are likely to look askance and withhold their $donations - I mean, it currently seems as though the people making the request for funds could be less interested in actually using it for Snowden's ultimate benefit than they are interested in using it as a gravy train for unscrupulous lawyers whilst they kick the political football around as a distraction. (Hey, it's a living - right?)
So the concern would be that one's donation could very probably end up being not very well-spent for the deserving purposes one had thought it would have properly and legitimately been intended for.
For example, this politically agnostic non-American was going to press the button to donate to the Snowden legal aid fund, until he saw that unfortunate gratuitous line, whereupon the brakes went hard on.
I mentioned above the work I had done on contracts with charitable organisations (including oxfam.org, lepra.org.uk, orderofstjohn.org). They operated along unambiguous, transparent, strong and consistent principled and ethical guidelines.
Donating to them was thus very much a matter of trust that one's $donation would fund delivery of service/support to the object of the charity, and similarly for the Snowden legal aid fund, though it is not a charity nor of similar type. However, by their own actions, the Snowden legal aid people have essentially ensured that not only will this potential donor withhold making a $donation now, but also probably in his lifetime.
I have only once before taken such a course of action, and that was with an NZ charitable organisation (no names, no pack drill) which was eventually exposed as having for several years apparently knowingly supported a parasitic, greedy and unscrupulous CEO who basically rode on the back of the charity, living the life of O'Reilly, including (from memory) excessive personal credit card spending, house loans, first class air travel everywhere on needless/pointless international trips, etc. It seemed to be a clear case of systemic corruption and tolerance of corruption, with very little proper prudential or fiduciary oversight/governance.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version