You are allowed to suggest sentencing. This isn’t preferential treatment to Google. Of course, the judge doesn’t have to listen to anybody’s suggestions, but you are definitely allowed to make them.

Manganese dioxide is used to decompose ozone. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1001074222005083

The material itself cannot be magnetized, which is what they mean by not “being magnetic”. However, these do have spin currents that can be measured and controlled, so they sustain “magnetic activity”. Kind of like a hybrid between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic.

But what does that actually mean? When he actually went through the propper channels for his position? Department of Defense is a VERY wide organisation, and allegedly he did just that.

It means exactly that. File a complaint with the DOD or IC IG’s office.

Claiming he us not a whistleblower, because a VERY specific procedure needs to be followed is just a legal cop out. It’s an ambiguous law that can be used to burry shit indefinitely, and bent to be applied as they wish if people go public.

Here you are saying the same wrong information for the third time. He does not qualify as a whistleblower because be publicly leaked classified information, there’s nothing ambiguous about that.

Snowden: I raised NSA concerns internally over 10 times…

…Snowden said. “The NSA has records. They have copies of emails right now to their Office of General Counsel, to their oversight and compliance folks, from me raising concerns about the NSA’s interpretations of its legal authorities.”

Right. He was able to copy millions of classified documents but forgot to get copies of the same emails that prove he raised concerns through the proper channels. This is the only email that there’s record of, and it was not even submitted by Snowden, but by the NSA.

the proposal included a 5 year ban on any browsering

I guess 5 years is not too bad, but the judge would probably never agree to the ban.

Given that even Mozilla (who has significantly less resources than Google) had the ability to create a second web engine and then abandon it, it would be dumb to think that Google doesn’t have at least 2 or 3 teams working on different browsers or engines for no reason.

Unless they’re prohibited from creating another web browser ever again (which would most likely be a bad idea), they can probably come up with a working browser in less than two years

you are a corporatist that is just salty that your favorite MIC corporation got outed for breaking federal law

Provides nothing to the discussion but an insane reach (I already said I agree with what Snowden did) and an insult.

Manning didn’t break the law and still served an illegal sentence, so I will give Snowden and Asange the benefit of the doubt.

Here you are saying incorrect information again. I repeat, under the US law, leaking classified information to the public is not considered whistleblowing. Manning broke the law.

I’m sick and tired of US propaganda, much less the international versions.

I’m tired of all propaganda, including pro and anti-US propaganda. The US has enough issues as it is and there are enough reasons to condemn the current system. Making things up and defending criminal activities doesn’t help anybody.

Trump stole far more classified documents and that is just fine according to the law

Trump did not publicly leak any classified documents, he simply took them with him. It’s still illegal and was prosecuted for it, but this is not comparable to Manning or Snowden. By the way, Biden did the same thing.

He did not try those avenues, as there would be a record of it.

https://irp.fas.org/congress/2016_rpt/hpsci-snowden.pdf

Oh course, now you will say they are lying and they’re hiding the fact that he went through the proper channels.

When it comes to government transparency? Yes, undoubtedly.

Yes, that’s why there are avenues for whistleblowers. Publicly sharing classified information is not one of them.

The criminals are those in government, but they own the system and will never go after themselves.

What’s the point of this statement? So because we can’t prosecute some criminals we shouldn’t prosecute anybody?

As a veteran, and former Captain, of the USN, yes.

Yeah I’m sure you believe that. How many documents did you leak? You obviously didn’t use your security clearance to leak classified documents, which makes you a hypocrite. “Do as I say, not as I do”. Also, being a former captain doesn’t really make your opinion more valuable than anybody else’s.

Provided that they fall under the protections for whistleblowers, which both Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning fell into rather neatly, according to US federal laws.

Then you should know that publicly revealing classified information is not considered whistleblowing under the law. So I guess that changes your “Yes” to a “No”, since it was a “Yes” provided the statement that followed.

Illegal orders are illegal. Even the UCMJ agrees with that stance.

It looks like you’re not well informed on the subject. Snowden didn’t just say bad things were happening and that the US was spying on citizens (which would’ve still been illegal anyways). He stole 1.5 million classified documents, although he says that he hasn’t shared them.

The truth is that whether you like it or not, Snowden is a criminal who knew what he was doing.

I’d like for you to try and justify all of the times that the U.S Government has broken the law. Laws that they’ve made and international law, unapologetically.

I never justify breaking the law. Everyone who breaks the law must be prosecuted and I never said otherwise. Unfortunately it’s hard to prosecute governments, specially from superpowers like the US.

Also, you’re making some very weak comparisons. Snowden isn’t like Trump.

At this point I believe you responded to the wrong person, because I also haven’t even mentioned Trump.

The American People deserve the knowledge of what their government is doing. For too long has the government operate in crooked practices that only have made the people grow contempt and distrustful towards.

That is true, but unfortunately that’s not the law. It’s like smoking marihuana when it was illegal. Everyone knew it was harmless, but the law said to not smoke it so you shouldn’t. If you allow Snowden to break his confidentiality without consequences, you’re giving green light to everyone who wants to give classified information to foreign nations.

If the government is going to take, give back, take again and give back our rights while allowing itself to be influenced by corporate interests. It’s fair game.

But it’s not fair game. The fact that it’s the right thing to do is not related to the fact that it’s illegal. You can say that Snowden did the right thing and that he’s a criminal that deserves prosecution. Both of those things can be true at the same time, and they are.

If you want to look for unjust prosecution, you look at Julian Assange’s case, not Snowden.

Do you think government employees should be able to break NDAs and publish state secrets without consequences? I support what Snowden did, but he is now a criminal and must be prosecuted as such.

Yes, I get downvoted a lot on Lemmy, yet nobody seems to be able to say why I’m wrong on these issues. Users of Lemmy resort to downvoting when they can’t defend their arguments. It is a fact that humans are more eager to show their disapproval than approval for something, like in restaurant reviews, where the only people who bother to leave a review are those with bad experiences.

Also, I’d be wary of basing your opinion explicitly off what other people think. You need to formulate your own thoughts if you want to retain some sort of identity.

Point to a comment where I show support for nazis. Strawman arguments is all you have to defend your points. Once again you fail to formulate an objective argument.

Funny how calling someone a jackass is “insulting” to you, but you treat bigotry like fair game.

“Jackass” is indeed an insult, no need to put it between quotations. And here you accuse me of treating bigotry like fair game without proof. The truth is here Godot messed up and you aren’t willing to see that because it would expose you as a hypocrite. Remember Godot apologized for the incident, yet here you are defending it.

I didn’t read the articles, and don’t care about how they frame the issue. This is for the guy who asked what I was talking about.

Bruh, you a fuckin clown.

Perfect.

Donating money doesn’t give you free rein to be an asshole

If you think he was being an asshole in that sentence, then I guess we’re done here.

Nobody is against the removal of nazis.

They banned “developer” accounts who were being incredibly disruptive throwing a tantrum about the social media account celebrating games with a wide variety of perspectives. I don’t think there’s any actual evidence for them banning a single person who ever did anything useful

Sure, if by not doing anything useful you mean donating money to the project, and saying that the project should focus on the project [1].

They aren’t obligated to let you be in their community

Beautiful statement.

Don’t behave like a raging jackass and you won’t be called one. I’m not obligated to ignore bad behavior either. It’s perfectly OK to call bad people behaving badly bad people.

The fact is the mass banning was not justified, and people were not being “raging jackass”, no matter how many times you call them that. There’s a reason Godot apologized for the incident, yet you fail to see that.