NSA considering Snowden amnesty in return for documents

Edward SnowdenNational Security Agency officials are considering a controversial amnesty that would return Edward Snowden to the United States, in exchange for the extensive document trove the whistleblower took from the agency.

An amnesty, which does not have the support of the State Department, would represent a surprising denouement to an international drama that has lasted half a year. It is particularly unexpected from a surveillance agency that has spent months insisting that Snowden’s disclosures have caused vast damage to US national security.

The NSA official in charge of assessing the alleged damage caused by Snowden’s leaks, Richard Ledgett, told CBS News an amnesty still remains controversial within the agency, which has spent the past six months defending itself against a global outcry and legislative and executive proposals to restrain its broad surveillance activities.

“My personal view is, yes, it’s worth having a conversation about,” Ledgett, who is under consideration to become the agency’s top civilian, said in an interview slated to air Sunday evening on 60 Minutes. “I would need assurances that the remainder of the data could be secured, and my bar for those assurances would be very high. It would be more than just an assertion on his part.”

Snowden is in Russia, having been granted a year-long asylum that has sparked international intrigue. In June, the Justice Department filed a criminal complaint charging the 30-year old former contractor with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and “wilful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person”, although he has not yet been indicted.

Any amnesty would have to come through the Justice Department, which did not respond to a request for comment.

The NSA’s director, General Keith Alexander, told CBS that granting Snowden amnesty would reward the leaks and potentially incentivize future ones. But Alexander is retiring in the spring, joining his civilian deputy John C Inglis, and Ledgett is rumored to be a top candidate to replace Inglis.

On Sunday, the State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ledgett was stating a “personal view”.

“Our position has not changed,” Harf said. “Mr Snowden is facing very serious charges and should return to the United States to face them.”

Alexander’s predecessor at the NSA, retired Air Force General Michael Hayden, also rejected an amnesty for Snowden.

“I wouldn’t do it. That simply motivates future Snowdens,” said Hayden, who began the bulk collection of Americans’ phone and internet metadata in 2001 as a response to 9/11 that was initially unknown and unauthorized by Congress and the courts.

But Hayden also said that Snowden had kickstarted an important debate in the US about the appropriate balance between liberty and security.

“Snowden was important. He accelerated a debate, he misshaped the debate, but … the debate was coming,” Hayden said, on NBC.

Snowden told the New York Times in October that he divested himself of the documents before leaving Hong Kong for Russia, which he suggested was a preventive measure to keep the documents out of the hands of Russian intelligence. Lack of access to the documents, which are now in the hands of journalists, would likely complicate the “assurances” Ledgett indicated the government would require for any amnesty.

The NSA does not believe that Snowden’s documents have escaped the collection capabilities of its Russian and Chinese counterparts; a senior official told the New York Times on Saturday that the government may never know how much material Snowden took from the agency.

The Guardian continues to publish surveillance stories based on Snowden’s leaks, as do the Washington Post and other news organizations around the world, aided by the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the two journalists who maintain possession of the entire Snowden data trove.

Ledgett told Reuters that the NSA is worried about the large majority of documents the agency believes to have been taken by Snowden that news organizations have not yet published.

Whether or not Snowden returns to the US a free man, the Obama administration continues to grapple with the aftershocks of his disclosures. Ledgett and other NSA officials have said that the agency is instituting new technical initiatives to prevent new Snowdens by increasing internal data security. Alexander testified on Wednesday that the agency would soon detail those to Congress, but he said they included “compartmentalizing and encrypting data”.

However, NSA officials conceded in interviews that by the time of Snowden’s leaks, they had yet to fully implement data-security promises the government pledged to institute after the 2010 leaks of war logs and diplomatic cables by the Army private Chelsea Manning.

On Friday, a review group created by the White House provided President Barack Obama with a report recommending 40 potential surveillance reforms. National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the administration would spend “several weeks” assessing which to implement, and would make the report public in January.

The White House has already rejected one proposed initiative, which would divorce the NSA from the military’s Cyber Command, which protects US military data networks and attacks those of adversaries. Civil liberties groups have already attacked the review group’s reported proposals as cosmetic.

“The proposed recommendations from the Review Group do not go far enough,” said Alan Butler, a lawyer for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “Bulk collection of personal data should simply end. And meaningful constraints on the NSA should be re-established. The purpose of FISA was to allow for electronic surveillance of foreign targets for foreign intelligence purposes, and the current framework of bulk domestic collection is upside down.”

Beyond the review group, privacy advocates in Congress are pushing a bill, the USA Freedom Act, that would prevent the government from collecting Americans’ phone and other data in bulk without court-authorized and individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. The USA Freedom Act has yet to clear any of its relevant committees in the House and Senate, but supporters claim 120 co-sponsors in the legislature.

The 60 Minutes interview is part of an NSA initiative to rebuild its reputation through increased public engagement. This week, the sympathetic blog Lawfare will air a series of podcasted interviews with NSA leaders. Senior NSA officials have also been making appearances on college campuses to argue that their bulk surveillance activities are necessary for national security and not intrusive on Americans’ privacy.
The Guardian

  • Reasonableman

    Only in america you get charged for leaking the truth what an example america has portrayed itself to be.

    • Reasonableman

      What follows truth except lies!!

  • Reasonableman

    Get charged to present the truth what an example america has portrayed itself to be.

    • Reasonableman

      What follows truth except lies!!

  • Reasonableman

    The Quran and the Sunnah, which are the primary sources of Islamic law, put great emphasis on equality. Consequently, in Islamic legal system there cannot be one law for the ruler and one for the subject; one for the powerful and one for the weak; one for the rich and one for the poor. Government authorities enjoy no special privileges or immunities from the application of law. Even the Prophet of Islam did not consider himself or his family above the law. Instead of claiming any immunity from the law, he laid down the rule that even the head of the state may be challenged, in both official and private capacity, in the court.The following statement of the Prophet (PBUH) which he made while deciding the case of a noble woman who had committed theft, demonstrates it all: “Verily those who were before you were destroyed because when a noble man from among them committed theft, they passed no sentence on him. By Allah, had Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, I would have cut off her hand.”Also, during the course of his last sermon, the Prophet publicly offered to the community that if he owed anything to anyone, or had done any harm to anyone’s life or property, he was available to answer for it.

    • Reasonableman

      : The Quran says: “Surely We have revealed the Book to thee with truth that thou may judge between people by means of what Allah has taught thee. And be not one pleading the cause of the dishonest.” (4: 105)It is agreed that the occasion of the revelation of the above-given verse was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim, in which the Prophet decided against the Muslim. The Muslim, supported by his tribe, had falsely accused the Jew of theft. In a time when help was sorely needed for the defence of Islam, a verdict against a man supported by his tribe meant the loss of that tribe. But such considerations did not carry any weight with the Prophet and he cleared the Jew of the charge. Thus, the verse lays down that dishonesty must be punished, and the balance of justice must be held equal between friends and foes and between Muslims and non-Muslims.The Prophet was known for his fair and impartial administration of justice. Along with Muslims, non-Muslims would also come to him for settlement of their disputes and he would adjudicate in accordance with their laws. He strictly observed the Quranic instructions regarding equality before law, and never made any distinction between litigants on the basis of religion or relations.The Quran says: “O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he be rich or poor… And if you distort or turn away (from truth), surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.” (4:135) “O you who believe, be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice; and not let hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty. And keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is aware of what you do.” (5:8)The extent to which impartiality is expected of a judge is also well illustrated in the story concerning Caliph Umar. He once had a lawsuit against a Jew. When both parties went before the judge, the latter rose in his seat out of deference to Umar. Umar looked upon this act of deference to one party as an unpardonable judicial weakness.

      • Reasonableman

        In Islamic legal system, judiciary is independent of executive control. Judges can perform their functions without any interference and none can influence the course of justice with his authority or wealth. The following portion of a letter that was written by Caliph Ali to one of his governors, excellently explains the notion of independence of judiciary in Islam:“Select for your Chief Judge one from the people who by far is the best among them; one who is not obsessed with domestic worries; one who cannot be intimidated; one who does not err too often; one who does not turn back from the right path once he finds it; one who is not self centred or avaricious; one who will not decide before knowing full facts; one who will weigh with care every attendant doubt and pronounce a clear verdict after taking everything into full consideration; one who will not grow restive over the arguments of advocates; one who will examine with patience every new disclosure of facts; one who will be strictly impartial in his decision; one whom flattery cannot mislead; one who does not exult over his position.“But it is not easy to find such men… Once you have selected the right man for the office, pay him handsomely enough to let him live in comfort and in keeping with his position, enough to keep him above temptations. Give him a position in your court so high that none can even dream of coveting it, and so high that neither backbiting nor intrigue can touch him.”Since law, in Islam, stands at the apex of social organisation, those who administer the law must likewise be elevated and kept free of all executive control.

        • 5thDrawer

          Since I don’t wish to make a treatise of evolutionary thought after some by one ‘Caliph’ on the subject of ‘justice’, allow me to just take ONE of those lovely pre-conditions given to us mere humans on how to choose a ‘judge’.
          “one who does not err too often”
          PLEASE Explain to me ‘too often’.

          • Reasonableman

            In sequence with the whole statement somebody who does not err too often means, somebody mentally strong, centered, capable and reliable with strong iman.
            Iman(faith) in this case strong faith to be just with people be him black, white, chinese, indian, rich, poor, retarted or disabled, as being just is a trait beloved to allah.

            Iman(faith) goes up and down there are three levels

            Muslim – mu’min – muhsin

            To the commonfolk with limited knowledge of the subject of aqeeda(creed) it may seem like evoloution but do not forget islam is a majority of the world population and its not because they are illiterate.

          • 5thDrawer

            You don’t seem to hear my point of the question.
            The ‘Word of God’ , we can then say, is the control of ALL the world’s population.
            Only ONE God. The first ‘commandment’. (others added later … up to 10)
            I would have expected ‘never’, rather than allowing ‘some’ by saying ‘too often’.
            Because it becomes debatable … and we could ‘dialogue’ for centuries.
            Which has proven fruitless.

        • libnan1

          OK, If what you say is true how come you don’t live under Sunni Islamic legal system? Dude you just don’t make any sense. The Quran teaching might be great but Sunni practices are different. Look at the whole Sunni regimes and countries, they are the most corrupt human being. Why do you feel that it is OK kill innocent people just because their governments did you wrong? why do think it is OK to destroy a church in Lebanon when a news paper in Sweden insulted Mohammad? I would suggest you don’t post verses from the and then practice differently. Sunnis need to look at the mirror and start practicing what they read in the Quran.

    • yalibnan

      Your comment does not relate to the published article.

      All comments in the future that do not relate to the published article will be deleted.

      • Reasonableman

        No dramas yalibnan, although i believe snowden is and alot of us also are being treated unjust. I made the post with the intention to prove that the secular system has been skewed with corruption and promoted only what i believed to be a core or what should be at the core of the equality system. Weather it be hebrew or hindu or islamic confusion was not the purpose only clear intent to better humanity.
        my argument is to contribute further into the liberty and security debate.

      • 5thDrawer

        The problem is, YaLibnan, that they can’t possibly relate to anything but the one book. All the answers of life are purported to be within it’s pages, and they must find the words that will explain any action of anyone therein; or when it can’t be explained by the one book it must therefore be ignored. That American Law – and the thoughts of ‘free will’ vs ‘society’ – is not readily apparent in the one book, simply puts ‘debate’ back to quoted words of the ancients as being the ‘only’ law.
        That it doesn’t relate is simple superfluousity.

    • 5thDrawer

      So … Assume Government is Muhammad. In BOTH cases then:
      Did he work for the government? Yes.
      Did he steal government property? Yes.
      Chop off his head.

      • Reasonableman

        The american government stole the liberty of the peoples free will by snooping in on their personal affairs no actions should go unaccounted for even if it means the “rich” have to pay more taxes because of stupid security issues created by the stupid legislators themself.

        Why was there not a vote or a thinktank which could have avoided the collosel?

        • 5thDrawer

          Reactionary politics. Somebody bombs a building, and the people run in fear, and dive onto the pyre of ‘self-sacrifice’ suggested by ‘leaders’ who hear ‘Save Me’ very well. That there is no fore-thought on the matter is no-one’s specific fault, except that of educators who don’t.
          As for taxes … a different subject entirely … there is no equality. Anywhere.

          • Reasonableman

            Justice does not come before an action justice is the reaction or consequence to an action so think about it 5th and i know your a deep thinker.

            Who would bomb a building and why?
            Murphies law to every action is a reaction, alot of unhappy people chanting america is the devil obviously injustice is being comitted by americans day in day out they have to think about increased security incase there is reaction to their genocides and unlawfulness.

            Why do americans have to suffer alot of americans are good people they dont want to be in afghanistan or iraq or anywhere accross the globe living up wars these lawmakers dream up.

          • 5thDrawer

            On that premise, I would ask, Why is ANYONE in Syria? :-)))
            Of course … the answer on all that stuff is about propaganda. Education attempts to allow us to see what is propaganda and not foment it. If you are going to vote on a King or a gang of ‘king-makers’, it’s best to know when you hear the BS.

          • Reasonableman

            I don’t vote, so dont need to hear it.
            I don’t trust a peice of paper with a box ticked with lead pencil to be the way of a civilised and open society maybe when they upgrade to ink.

          • 5thDrawer

            These days, we can even trace where a pencil has been … where pressure has been applied … 😉 Press HARD when making your mark. :-))
            Or buy an artist’s black+ pencil to take to the booth. The government doesn’t want to use the free pens they steal from hotels … like the rest of us. :-))))
            In some places you can register to ‘abstain’ .. which means you don’t like any one of the choices. THAT is a ‘vote’ too.

          • Reasonableman

            LOL yea but vote goes to local government and whoever they support

          • Reasonableman

            One god who gives us free will. Those who do not recieve justice in this life (and they are many) will surely recieve it on judgement day.

          • 5thDrawer

            Amen. In the meanwhile, we are supposed to try to live, I assume.

          • Reasonableman

            How can we live when there are grown men crying like kids holding portions of their kids 🙁

          • 5thDrawer

            And then, by MAN, injustice reigns everywhere. And that is the simple truth.
            By Earth and Nature, even good and godly people are treated ‘unjustly’ – in their minds a flood or an earthquake must be a punishment of a god. The attempts of humanity over aeons to understand a ‘reason’ have led to many ‘beliefs’ – there has been no desire to accept that life, simply, ‘IS’.
            It is a wonder, and is a wonder to us still.
            How we live it, and how we cause our own fate too often, is what drives too many into this sadness you describe. And yes, there is too much of it. Has been always.
            Should that be ascribed to God?

          • Maborlz Ez-Hari

            It is all ascribed to man, his confidence in his little insignificant mind compared to the wisdom and infinite knowledge of the Creator is the reason why the world is full of misery and confusion.

          • 5thDrawer

            Which is why I believe in evolution. I think we have had some improvements over the tiny time on the planet. Problem is that the speed of ‘tech’ beat out the philosophy … and we can now eliminate all life if we wish to.
            Better begin to make some choices …

          • Reasonableman

            No ofcourse not, we are the creators of our own problems.

            Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you (O Muhammad SAW) as a Messenger to mankind, and Allah is Sufficient as a Witness.[4:79]

            We are going in circles 5th we just explained we are humans of free will. We have choices wether they are good choices we make or not they all have concequences.

            Im over this bromance

          • 5thDrawer

            And thus, we must also be Messengers.
            If i’m sipping a quality scotch while sitting at a damned computer to do it, is neither here nor there. The message is the same. 🙂
            Time for the bacon and eggs. :-))))

  • Reasonableman

    The Quran and the Sunnah, which are the primary sources of Islamic law, put great emphasis on equality. Consequently, in Islamic legal system there cannot be one law for the ruler and one for the subject; one for the powerful and one for the weak; one for the rich and one for the poor. Government authorities enjoy no special privileges or immunities from the application of law. Even the Prophet of Islam did not consider himself or his family above the law. Instead of claiming any immunity from the law, he laid down the rule that even the head of the state may be challenged, in both official and private capacity, in the court.The following statement of the Prophet (PBUH) which he made while deciding the case of a noble woman who had committed theft, demonstrates it all: “Verily those who were before you were destroyed because when a noble man from among them committed theft, they passed no sentence on him. By Allah, had Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, I would have cut off her hand.”Also, during the course of his last sermon, the Prophet publicly offered to the community that if he owed anything to anyone, or had done any harm to anyone’s life or property, he was available to answer for it.

    • Reasonableman

      : The Quran says: “Surely We have revealed the Book to thee with truth that thou may judge between people by means of what Allah has taught thee. And be not one pleading the cause of the dishonest.” (4: 105)It is agreed that the occasion of the revelation of the above-given verse was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim, in which the Prophet decided against the Muslim. The Muslim, supported by his tribe, had falsely accused the Jew of theft. In a time when help was sorely needed for the defence of Islam, a verdict against a man supported by his tribe meant the loss of that tribe. But such considerations did not carry any weight with the Prophet and he cleared the Jew of the charge. Thus, the verse lays down that dishonesty must be punished, and the balance of justice must be held equal between friends and foes and between Muslims and non-Muslims.The Prophet was known for his fair and impartial administration of justice. Along with Muslims, non-Muslims would also come to him for settlement of their disputes and he would adjudicate in accordance with their laws. He strictly observed the Quranic instructions regarding equality before law, and never made any distinction between litigants on the basis of religion or relations.The Quran says: “O you who believe, be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness for Allah, even though it be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives — whether he be rich or poor… And if you distort or turn away (from truth), surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do.” (4:135) “O you who believe, be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice; and not let hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty. And keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is aware of what you do.” (5:8)The extent to which impartiality is expected of a judge is also well illustrated in the story concerning Caliph Umar. He once had a lawsuit against a Jew. When both parties went before the judge, the latter rose in his seat out of deference to Umar. Umar looked upon this act of deference to one party as an unpardonable judicial weakness.

      • Reasonableman

        In Islamic legal system, judiciary is independent of executive control. Judges can perform their functions without any interference and none can influence the course of justice with his authority or wealth. The following portion of a letter that was written by Caliph Ali to one of his governors, excellently explains the notion of independence of judiciary in Islam:“Select for your Chief Judge one from the people who by far is the best among them; one who is not obsessed with domestic worries; one who cannot be intimidated; one who does not err too often; one who does not turn back from the right path once he finds it; one who is not self centred or avaricious; one who will not decide before knowing full facts; one who will weigh with care every attendant doubt and pronounce a clear verdict after taking everything into full consideration; one who will not grow restive over the arguments of advocates; one who will examine with patience every new disclosure of facts; one who will be strictly impartial in his decision; one whom flattery cannot mislead; one who does not exult over his position.“But it is not easy to find such men… Once you have selected the right man for the office, pay him handsomely enough to let him live in comfort and in keeping with his position, enough to keep him above temptations. Give him a position in your court so high that none can even dream of coveting it, and so high that neither backbiting nor intrigue can touch him.”Since law, in Islam, stands at the apex of social organisation, those who administer the law must likewise be elevated and kept free of all executive control.

        • 5thDrawer

          Since I don’t wish to make a treatise of evolutionary thought after some by one ‘Caliph’ on the subject of ‘justice’, allow me to just take ONE of those lovely pre-conditions given to us mere humans on how to choose a ‘judge’.
          “one who does not err too often”
          PLEASE Explain to me ‘too often’.

          • Reasonableman

            In sequence with the whole statement somebody who does not err too often means, somebody mentally strong, centered, capable and reliable with strong iman.
            Iman(faith) in this case strong faith to be just with people be him black, white, chinese, indian, rich, poor, retarted or disabled, as being just is a trait beloved to allah.

            Iman(faith) goes up and down there are three levels

            Muslim – mu’min – muhsin

            To the commonfolk with limited knowledge of the subject of aqeeda(creed) it may seem like evoloution but do not forget islam is a majority of the world population and its not because they are illiterate.

          • 5thDrawer

            You don’t seem to hear my point of the question.
            The ‘Word of God’ , we can then say, is the control of ALL the world’s population.
            Only ONE God. The first ‘commandment’. (others added later … up to 10)
            I would have expected ‘never’, rather than allowing ‘some’ by saying ‘too often’.
            Because it becomes debatable … and we could ‘dialogue’ for centuries.

        • libnan1

          OK, If what you say is true how come you don’t live under Sunni Islamic legal system? Dude you just don’t make any sense. The Quran teaching might be great but Sunni practices are different. Look at the whole Sunni regimes and countries, they are the most corrupt human being. Why do you feel that it is OK kill innocent people just because their governments did you wrong? why do think it is OK to destroy a church in Lebanon when a news paper in Sweden insulted Mohammad? I would suggest you don’t post verses from the and then practice differently. Sunnis need to look at the mirror and start practicing what they read in the Quran.

    • yalibnan

      Your comment does not relate to the published article.

      All comments in the future that do not relate to the published article will be deleted.

      • Reasonableman

        No dramas yalibnan, although i believe he is and alot of us are being treated unjust. I made the post with the intentionto prove that the secular system has been skewed with corruption and promoted only what i believed to be a core or what should be at the core of the equality system. Weather it be hebrew or hindu or islamic confusion was not the purpose only clear intent to better humanity.

      • 5thDrawer

        The problem is, YaLibnan, that they can’t possibly relate to anything but the one book. All the answers of life are purported to be within it’s pages, and they must find the words that will explain any action of anyone therein; or when it can’t be explained by the one book it must therefore be ignored. That American Law – and the thoughts of ‘free will’ vs ‘society’ – is not readily apparent in the one book, simply puts ‘debate’ back to quoted words of the ancients as being the ‘only’ law.
        That it doesn’t relate is simple superfluousity.

    • 5thDrawer

      So … Assume Government is Muhammad. In BOTH cases then:
      Did he work for the government? Yes.
      Did he steal government property? Yes.
      Chop off his head.

      • Reasonableman

        The american government stole the liberty of the peoples free will by snooping in on their personal affairs no actions should go unaccounted for even if it means the “rich” have to pay more taxes because of stupid security issues created by the stupid legislators themself.

        Why was there not a vote or a thinktank which could have avoided the collosel?

        • 5thDrawer

          Reactionary politics. Somebody bombs a building, and the people run in fear, and dive onto the pyre of ‘self-sacrifice’ suggested by ‘leaders’ who hear ‘Save Me’ very well. That there is no fore-thought on the matter is no-one’s specific fault, except that of educators who don’t.
          As for taxes … a different subject entirely … there is no equality. Anywhere.

          • Reasonableman

            Justice does not come before an action justice is the reaction or consequence to an action so think about it 5th and i know your a deep thinker.

            Who would bomb a building and why?
            Murphies law to every action is a reaction, alot of unhappy people chanting america is the devil obviously injustice is being comitted by americans day in day out they have to think about increased security incase there is reaction to their genocides and unlawfulness.

            Why do americans have to suffer alot of americans are good people they dont want to be in afghanistan or iraq or anywhere accross the globe living up wars these lawmakers dream up.

          • 5thDrawer

            On that premise, I would ask, Why is ANYONE in Syria? :-)))
            Of course … the answer on all that stuff is about propaganda. Education attempts to allow us to see what is propaganda and not foment it. If you are going to vote on a King or a gang of ‘king-makers’, it’s best to know when you hear the BS.

          • Reasonableman

            I don’t vote, so dont need to hear it.
            I don’t trust a peice of paper with a box ticked with lead pencil to be the way of a civilised and open society maybe when they upgrade to ink.

          • 5thDrawer

            These days, we can even trace where a pencil has been … where pressure has been applied … 😉 Press HARD when making your mark. :-))
            Or buy an artist’s black+ pencil to take to the booth. The government doesn’t want to use the free pens they steal from hotels … like the rest of us. :-))))

          • Reasonableman

            LOL yea but vote goes to local government and whoever they support

          • Reasonableman

            One god who gives us free will. Those who do not recieve justice in this life (and they are many) will surely recieve it on judgement day.

          • 5thDrawer

            Amen. In the meanwhile, we are supposed to try to live, I assume.

          • Reasonableman

            How can we live when there are grown men crying like kids holding portions of their kids 🙁

          • 5thDrawer

            And then, by MAN, injustice reigns everywhere. And that is the simple truth.
            By Earth and Nature, even good and godly people are treated ‘unjustly’ – in their minds a flood or an earthquake must be a punishment of a god. The attempts of humanity over aeons to understand a ‘reason’ have led to many ‘beliefs’ – there has been no desire to accept that life, simply, ‘IS’.
            It is a wonder, and is a wonder to us still.
            How we live it, and how we cause our own fate too often, is what drives too many into this sadness you describe. And yes, there is too much of it. Has been always.
            Should that be ascribed to God?

          • Maborlz Ez-Hari

            It is all ascribed to man, his confidence in his little insignificant mind compared to the wisdom and infinite knowledge of the Creator is the reason why the world is full of misery and confusion.

          • 5thDrawer

            Which is why I believe in evolution. I think we have had some improvement over the tiny time on the planet. Problem is that the speed of ‘tech’ beat out the philosophy … and we can now eliminate all life if we wish to.
            Better begin to make some choices …

          • Reasonableman

            No ofcourse not, we are the creators of our own problems.

            Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself. And We have sent you (O Muhammad SAW) as a Messenger to mankind, and Allah is Sufficient as a Witness.[4:79]

            We are going in circles 5th we just explained we are humans of free will. We have choices wether they are good choices we make or not they all have concequences.

          • 5thDrawer

            And thus, we must also be Messengers.
            If i’m sipping a quality scotch while sitting at a damned computer to do it, is neither here nor there. The message is the same. 🙂
            Time for the bacon and eggs. :-))))