• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

The banner of the slide on Drudge Report was TS/SI/ORCON/NOFORN. So... yeah.

He may have had understandable or honorable intentions. That doesn't make the act itself right.

Let's make one thing perfectly damn clear: the government has no ****ing business spying on the international cellphone calls of Americans who are under no suspicion of criminal or terrorist activity.
 
:shrug: yes. Government is force, it is coercion, it is the use of the threat of violence against your neighbor to force him (and you) to live together somewhat peaceably. All goverment power is thus subject to the possibility of incredible abuse against the people. Think about it: the government of the US has more and better weapons than anyone else on the planet and you are worried about them intercepting your pizza order?

The way we protect ourselves is through the balance of power, the use of checks and balances, the setting of faction against faction. That is how we keep government from being used to abuse us. Many of us often disagree with the particulars of decisions reached in compromises between those factions, and so we have regular elections to allow ourselves to change the mix.

Are you against civil disobedience in all cases?
 
Are you against civil disobedience in all cases?

.......no. I wouldn't say that I am capable at this point of providing final judgement on the program or snowden. I would point out that a critical part of civil disobedience is that you be willing to experience the punishment for your actions because of your beliefs in the higher moral truth of your cause. If you wish to protest and disobey the law, you go to jail to do so. Snowden appears unwilling to do so.
 
.......no. I wouldn't say that I am capable at this point of providing final judgement on the program or snowden. I would point out that a critical part of civil disobedience is that you be willing to experience the punishment for your actions because of your beliefs in the higher moral truth of your cause. Snowden appears unwilling to do so.

That is a good point. I’ll give him a little slack, though, since he actually outed himself. He may be staying outside our jurisdiction so he can ensure his side of the story is heard. Or there may be some ulterior motive. We’ll have to see how it plays out.
 
Let's make one thing perfectly damn clear: the government has no ****ing business spying on the international cellphone calls of Americans who are under no suspicion of criminal or terrorist activity.

:shrug: I'll make something perfectly damn clear in return. You seem to have no ****ing idea what you are talking about, and appear to be mostly reacting from emotion rather than rational analysis. I would look with a question at the claim that it is spying to have a point-to-point record, as no content is collected. Having a record of all numbers called by Verizon customers so that you can scan them in order to see if anyone is calling suicide-bomber-facilitators in Pakistan strikes me as a reasonable program, especially if it is overseen by both Congress and the Judiciary.
 
That is a good point. I’ll give him a little slack, though, since he actually outed himself. He may be staying outside our jurisdiction so he can ensure his side of the story is heard. Or there may be some ulterior motive. We’ll have to see how it plays out.

Bradley Manning's "side of the story" has certainly been heard.
 
This wasn't civil disobedience, this was tantamount to treason.

He has destroyed collection programs that have saved lives in the past, and would likely have otherwise saved lives in the future. The American People did not grant Edward Snowden authority to make life or death decisions on their behalf - they granted that to their government instead.
 
Man i cant believe you call yourself a "libertarian" then...

As those of us on the right keep having to point out: "libertarian" =/= "anti-government". it only seems that way to those who support boundless government, because they are less well suited to appreciate arguments for authority within defined limits. that's why you get all those silly "somalia should be your paradise" strawman arguments, where limited government is confused with anarchy.
 
This wasn't civil disobedience, this was tantamount to treason.

Treason is helping the enemy.

Snowden helped the American people by letting us know that our government is spying on our international cellphone calls, regardless of probable cause or evidence of criminal/terrorist activity.

Do you consider the American people to be the enemy?
 
This wasn't civil disobedience, this was tantamount to treason.

I read cpwill’s post as possibly indicating since the government sanctioned the program it was wrong to go against their will. I had doubts cpwill believed that in all cases which is why I asked him about civil disobedience.

I agree this wasn’t civil disobedience since he signed a nondisclosure agreement and voluntarily put himself in a position of having to keep secrets. But I also don’t consider it treason. On the surface it seems to me he did this out of loyalty to the Constitution and constitutional principles. I refuse to see someone who acts out of devotion to the Constitution as a traitor. A criminal, maybe, but not a traitor.

Once again, that is based on what I know so far. It is always possible we could learn something about this person and his actions that cast everything in a new light.
 
He has destroyed collection programs that have saved lives in the past, and would likely have otherwise saved lives in the future. The American People did not grant Edward Snowden authority to make life or death decisions on their behalf - they granted that to their government instead.

Exactly!
 
Whistle-blowing is revealing illegal acts. It's not about revealing top-secret information.

I'm pretty sure spying on every American regardless of being suspected of a crime or not is an illegal/unconstitutional act....
 
I read cpwill’s post as possibly indicating since the government sanctioned the program it was wrong to go against their will. I had doubts cpwill believed that in all cases which is why I asked him about civil disobedience.

I agree this wasn’t civil disobedience since he signed a nondisclosure agreement and voluntarily put himself in a position of having to keep secrets. But I also don’t consider it treason. On the surface it seems to me he did this out of loyalty to the Constitution and constitutional principles. I refuse to see someone who acts out of devotion to the Constitution as a traitor. A criminal, maybe, but not a traitor.

Once again, that is based on what I know so far. It is always possible we could learn something about this person and his actions that cast everything in a new light.

I don't question his motives, I do question the lives he has endangered.
 
As those of us on the right keep having to point out: "libertarian" =/= "anti-government". it only seems that way to those who support boundless government, because they are less well suited to appreciate arguments for authority within defined limits. that's why you get all those silly "somalia should be your paradise" strawman arguments, where limited government is confused with anarchy.

Im not using it as an anarchy claim im simply saying why would you not want to know what the government has been up to especially on infringement on civil liberties.
 
He has destroyed collection programs that have saved lives in the past, and would likely have otherwise saved lives in the future. The American People did not grant Edward Snowden authority to make life or death decisions on their behalf - they granted that to their government instead.

Sorry man,but snooping on every single American kinda goes against the whole idea of freedom.
 
Mr. Snowden is an American hero, in every sense of the word.

He has put his entire life, career, and future in jeapordy, because he felt our freedom and Constitution was being violated.

We should all strive to have even 10% of his courage.
 
Mr. Snowden is an American hero, in every sense of the word.

He has put his entire life, career, and future in jeapordy, because he felt our freedom and Constitution was being violated.

We should all strive to have even 10% of his courage.

Yeah, and I agree with Bill Maher, the guys who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were courageous, too.
 
I treasure both. Therefore..... what?

Spying on the international cellphone calls of Americans without probably cause of criminal or terrorist activity violates the 4th Amendment.

Does this trouble you?
 
Is it possible this program has saved lives? Absolutely. And once our technology advances to the point that the NSA actually CAN record and screen the contents of every phone call and email made I am sure even more lives could be saved. But it would still be wrong. Piece by piece by f-ing piece we are ceding our civil liberties in the name of security. Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? It seems to me that the only thing keeping our government from absolute intrusion is the technology itself. As the technology improves the government WILL encroach more and more. History is proof positive of that.

So when a public servant (ok, a contractor in this case) throws away his career and possibly risks his very freedom to give the People a wakeup call, it doesn’t make him a traitor.
 
Did this program save lives? Maybe.

Did this program intercept terrorist communications? Maybe.

Does that mean we should overlook its clear conflict with the 4th and 5th Amendment? **** no!!!!!

That's like saying the German Enabling Act and Reichstag Fire Decree were good laws because they brought order to Germany.
 
Back
Top Bottom