SuprBay: The PirateBay Forum

We just noted that the UN has made it clear that mass surveillance and broad data retention likely violates international law. Given that, perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise to hear that UN human rights commissioner Navi Pillay has said that Ed Snowden should not face a trial, since he was revealing human rights violations:

Quote: "Those who disclose human rights violations should be protected: we need them," Pillay told a news conference.

"I see some of it here in the case of Snowden, because his revelations go to the core of what we are saying about the need for transparency, the need for consultation," she said. "We owe a great deal to him for revealing this kind of information."

While this is unlikely to lead the US to suddenly drop its Espionage Act charges against Snowden (when has the US ever cared about what the UN has to say?), it's yet another example in a growing list of people recognizing just how extreme and isolated the US government's kneejerk reaction was to the Snowden revelations. If the US government were actually willing to be self-critical, it might realize what a mistake it's doing in trying to string up the messenger. We should be examining the appropriateness of the surveillance state, not whether the person who revealed the details should spend the rest of his life in jail.

Originally Published: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:00:02 GMT
source

Nothing personal but he did not violate any human rights crap. Sure the government is doing shit we don't like but he did break agreements he likely signed when he got the job. He knew the risk and the reason he isn't in jail now is because we was prepared.

Sometimes you have to be a sacrifice to point out something someone is doing wrong. Do you know how many people have died to overthrow corrupt governments? At some point people have to make a choice that this is F%*$ up and we have to risk death to do something about it.