• 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

Captain Adverse said:
Furthermore your position confuses me. You seem to advocate “martyrdom” as the only avenue of a “righteous” whistleblower, or that only a group united in righteousness should be allowed to blow whistles about government misconduct.
Click to expand...

I'm not truly advocating, I'm playing the devil's advocate role. I think most people would righteousness is important when it comes to being a hero. Do you agree?

Anyway, let's walk through it. If Snowden was ideologically driven, he probably wouldn't want to give positive publicity to the nations that he's going to. If he's for transparency, those aren't the places to go. So either he:

#1- Only believes in transparency for Americans/Westerners, rest of the world be damned. Is that someone you would consider a hero?
#2- Believes that the whole world should have transparency, but is being pragmatic and knows he can't do anything to change those places. In which case...why not just be pragmatic and affect change from within, if that's what he wanted. Why do you think he chose not to? I would imagine it's because he knew the lawfully elected government of the United States would- lawfully- veto him and say that it's necessary to keep this quiet to maximize its effectiveness. And he just couldn't bear the people who have the burden of the responsibility of protecting citizens of the US overruling one high school drop out. He thought he was bigger and smarter than virtually everyone else. Very heroic. Are you in support of people taking policy decisions like that into their own hands? Like I said, I'm not big on laws anyway, but are you the same way? You don't care if someone takes situations into their own hands as long as you agree with it?

Personally I am all for transparency in government, however it is presented. In this case a man making public inside information that was not actually “harmful” (unless you buy into the “War on Terror needs every tool in the armory to win” line of B/S) to the workings of our government.
Click to expand...

I'm not for transparency at all. I've dealt with the military and intelligence circles for virtually the entirety of my adult life. I understand what can happen when people get a hold of a little but of information. I've seen people trying to kill Americans get a little bit of info and capitalize on it and be much more effective than if they hadn't had it. I've also seen Americans trying to capture or kill people and the smallest of threads can lead them there. Every piece of information can be exploited. This might be some far off thing that happens to other people to you; it's very real and serious to me. You might say "Well, we shouldn't be anywhere where people would get mad at us to want to attack us anyway". If so, we can ignore how naive I think that is and just cut straight to the point: we're already there and nothing is going to stop it suddenly anyway: giving up LARGE details, when even small ones can hurt, just because some fat Walmart employee's wife in Topeka "wants to know" is not something I'm interested in.

So no, I'm not for 'transparency in government' when it comes to classified operations.

And your point on Ellsburg is complete nonsense. The Court was NOT being “lenient in the extreme,” it was acting on the basis of information regarding government misconduct and illegal wire tapping. Had it not been for Watergate and the evidence from that investigation provided to the judge during Ellsburg’s trial he’d probably be just getting released from prison about now with time off for good behavior.
Click to expand...

The break in at the psychologist's office wasn't central to the case in general. In was central to the trial in particular. He could've been retried. But they decided not to. Because of popular opinion. You continue to ignore my point about Jim Crow. Is it because we both know that public opinion can sometimes color a trial? OJ Simpson?

People believe a lot of erroneous things about our criminal justice system, but the reality is quite different. The only thing I will give you is the long-shot possibility of jury nullification, but if I were his friend (it would be unethical to offer this suggestion as an attorney) I’d be saying “Have a nice life in Iceland, later dude.”
Click to expand...

I'd say have a nice life in North Korea. I'm sure they wouldn't extradite him. Super safe. Weather kinda blows, though.
 
DA60 said:
So Snowden's in Moscow now...I hope he will be safe from extradition there.
Click to expand...

Good to see he made it to Russia, that champion of human rights.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
I'm not truly advocating, I'm playing the devil's advocate role. I think most people would righteousness is important when it comes to being a hero. Do you agree?

Anyway, let's walk through it. If Snowden was ideologically driven, he probably wouldn't want to give positive publicity to the nations that he's going to. If he's for transparency, those aren't the places to go.
Click to expand...

Let me stop you right here, because I do NOT AGREE with this premise. Neither of us know what Snowden's basic ideological position is, and whatever it is it would not necessarily be relevant to that fact he found our that his government was secretly spying on both him and his fellow countrymen.


OldWorldOrder said:
So either he:

#1- Only believes in transparency for Americans/Westerners, rest of the world be damned. Is that someone you would consider a hero?
#2- Believes that the whole world should have transparency, but is being pragmatic and knows he can't do anything to change those places.
Click to expand...

He is an American citizen, not (at least as of yet) a citizen of either a fascist or communist regime. I'm an American citizen, and as far as I am concerned let the rest of the world be damned! Each country is responsible for making it's own way in this world. I don't advocate or support the idea that the USA is, or should be, the World's Policeman. As for Point #2, it is irrelevant.

OldWorldOrder said:
In which case...why not just be pragmatic and affect change from within, if that's what he wanted. Why do you think he chose not to? I would imagine it's because he knew the lawfully elected government of the United States would- lawfully- veto him and say that it's necessary to keep this quiet to maximize its effectiveness. And he just couldn't bear the people who have the burden of the responsibility of protecting citizens of the US overruling one high school drop out. He thought he was bigger and smarter than virtually everyone else. Very heroic. Are you in support of people taking policy decisions like that into their own hands? Like I said, I'm not big on laws anyway, but are you the same way? You don't care if someone takes situations into their own hands as long as you agree with it?
Click to expand...

Wait! Are you not an American citizen? Are you at all aware of our history, of the Declaration of Independence? The Bill of Rights, which was added to the Constitution to make sure our government could never tred on hard-won basic liberties? Apparently not, because you are posing false dilemmas and asking questions that anyone with any understanding of these things would already know the answers to.

Basically, even though our Congress is empowered to enact laws, they are still bound to abide by the restrictions within the Bill of Rights. The may not enact laws that infringe on these basic rights. One of them is the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, which cannot be infringed without "due process." Due process is defined as Court-ordered and must be on a case by case (individual) basis only, not a "blanket permission" from a "secret court." These acts of "secret surveillance" violate that basic right. It does not matter if Congress says it's legal and the Executive Branch says we "need" it...the actions are Un-Constitutional.


OldWorldOrder said:
I'm not for transparency at all. I've dealt with the military and intelligence circles for virtually the entirety of my adult life. I understand what can happen when people get a hold of a little but of information. I've seen people trying to kill Americans get a little bit of info and capitalize on it and be much more effective than if they hadn't had it. I've also seen Americans trying to capture or kill people and the smallest of threads can lead them there. Every piece of information can be exploited. This might be some far off thing that happens to other people to you; it's very real and serious to me. You might say "Well, we shouldn't be anywhere where people would get mad at us to want to attack us anyway". If so, we can ignore how naive I think that is and just cut straight to the point: we're already there and nothing is going to stop it suddenly anyway: giving up LARGE details, when even small ones can hurt, just because some fat Walmart employee's wife in Topeka "wants to know" is not something I'm interested in.
Click to expand...

Well I was an army officer with a Top Secret clearance. I was exposed to a number of military secrets during my tenure in the U.S. Army. I agree that some secrets which directly affect the defense of this nation need to be protected. However, I limit them to war plans, technological plans and specifications, transit of personnel, weapons diagrams/manuals/and studies, lists of espionage agents and their whereabouts, and things of that nature.

On the other hand I am also familiar with the fact our government has a penchant for labeling things "secret" just because it would be embarrassing if the public found out. Worse, to hide things like this secret wholesale domestic surveillance, that our government KNOWS violate its remit and treads on American liberties. THESE THINGS NEED TO COME OUT! Regardless of how.

Now I am not even going to address your persistent efforts to make the Ellsburg case your example of "what a true hero should do." You are simply unable to comprehend how ridiculous your arguments are, or recognize FACTS that undercut them. You do not understand how the criminal justice system works, PERIOD! Nothing you have been saying regarding that case is either rational or relevant despite the fact you keep repeating it over and over. It's like people who think shouting the same thing louder and longer somehow wins an argument. Yes he was a hero, but NO, he did not "win" the case because it was a "cause celebre."

I have been "ignoring your point about Jim Crow" because THERE IS NO POINT. It is simply is not relevant. I don't even think YOU understand why you keep bringing it up.

I'm sorry to be so harsh but it's just mind-numbing how you keep ignoring the facts and keep throwing up the same tired old arguments. I'm not going to toss in the towel, but unless you provide something new in the way of an argument I don't think there is much more I can say in response.
 
instagramsci said:
Wow you can quote a dictionary way to use something i learned in 1st grade :roll:
Click to expand...


Clearly you appeared to need help understanding the difference between literal use, and not. But I am glad that you proceeded past the 1st grade, you must be proud.

Dictionary definitions aren't as important as how society uses words do you even know how language works
Click to expand...

Why yes, I do know how language works...What would like help with?

and conservative political analysis is useless
Click to expand...

To a brainwashed "Socialist", I can see how you think so....Let's talk later in life when you move out of mom's basement.

it sounds like 6 year olds whining about government taking freedoms that they thought they had but never existed
Click to expand...

Poor attempt to derail...Please stick to the topic.

or whining about women getting abortions
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about a right that is completely made up by man.....:roll: Anyway, stick to the subject.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Snowden?

Is he a hero? Is what he's doing heroic?

(Here's your chance to totally make wrong, but it's gonna take you damning Snowden. Which is more important?)
Click to expand...

At great personal expense, Snowden has come down on the side of the rule of law. That is, recognizing that that elements of the Fourth Amendment were violated on a systematic basis by the government, he revealed that violation. That violation is, of course, a high crime, NOT a misdemeanor.

Snowden exposed government crimes, that make him a hero and a patriot.

Comparatively, you support the criminal actions of the government. What does that make you?
 
instagramsci said:
You are quite capable of understanding whatever I type whether I use punctuation or not

Don't be a moron
Click to expand...

Not always, but frequently, poor use of the English language often suggest that the poor user might be a moron. :peace
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Ah, so Ellsberg got lucky and Snowden would not have been so lucky. I see. Because cases haven't been retried with larger issues?
Click to expand...

Probably Snowden is smart enough to be familiar with how the NSA and the US government treated his fellow NSA employee Thomas Drake, eh?

Drake played by the rules, stayed in the chain of command, and was promptly crushed by the federal government, by way of indictment.
 
Henry David said:
At great personal expense, Snowden has come down on the side of the rule of law.
Click to expand...

With all due respect Henry, I agree that he is doing this at great personal expense, but that is his decision. That he is coming down on the side of the rule of law is not what I would say. He is breaking the law, and running like a coward while doing it.

That is, recognizing that that elements of the Fourth Amendment were violated on a systematic basis by the government, he revealed that violation.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree that I don't like what this administration has done in regards to PRISM, and the meta-data collection is frightening, and possibly a high crime if the Obama administration is proven to have changed the levels to more than what the SCOTUS ruled that they can do, but Snowden's path for that properly was to go to the appropriate oversight committees and work with them, NOT flee to our adversaries in the world and reveal what damages the US like some Wiki leaks goof ball...

Snowden exposed government crimes, that make him a hero and a patriot.
Click to expand...

I see nothing patriotic in what Snowden is doing. Just days before Obama was set to have a sit down meeting with the Chinese leader, Snowden released information that we are cyber hacking China, and collecting cell phone data. Now that wasn't meant for anything other than embarrassing the US. You think that is heroic? I sure don't.....

Comparatively, you support the criminal actions of the government. What does that make you?
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a fair assessment.
 
j-mac said:
With all due respect Henry, I agree that he is doing this at great personal expense, but that is his decision. That he is coming down on the side of the rule of law is not what I would say. He is breaking the law, and running like a coward while doing it.



I happen to agree that I don't like what this administration has done in regards to PRISM, and the meta-data collection is frightening, and possibly a high crime if the Obama administration is proven to have changed the levels to more than what the SCOTUS ruled that they can do, but Snowden's path for that properly was to go to the appropriate oversight committees and work with them, NOT flee to our adversaries in the world and reveal what damages the US like some Wiki leaks goof ball...



I see nothing patriotic in what Snowden is doing. Just days before Obama was set to have a sit down meeting with the Chinese leader, Snowden released information that we are cyber hacking China, and collecting cell phone data. Now that wasn't meant for anything other than embarrassing the US. You think that is heroic? I sure don't.....



I don't think that is a fair assessment.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your most civil response.

Clearly, Snowden broke some sort of law or the other, no question.

But equally true is that the government has been breaking a variety of laws, and to me that far outweighs Snowden's petty offense. I would say he had a civic duty to expose the government crimes.

And apologies if I've already posted this point on the thread, but to me the proof is what happened to the other NSA whistleblower, Thomas Drake.

Drake played by the rules, went through the chain of command, and was properly indicted. Why would anybody in a similar position take that path, after Drake's case? I sure as heck would not. And look what they're doing to Manning.

Snowden did the right thing, as the government had done, and is doing, the wrong thing. Immoral and illegal are the government's actions. I applaud Manning and Snowden, and admire their courage and selflessness.
 
instagramsci said:
You are quite capable of understanding whatever I type whether I use punctuation or not

Don't be a moron
Click to expand...
Yet you were apparently incapable of understanding what was clear to everyone else.

Language is just a form of communication, and language in the written form requires some knowledge of punctuation in order to clarify your message to others. Before criticizing another poster and claiming he doesn't understand language, you should have a better understanding of how it all works yourself.
 
j-mac said:
With all due respect Henry, I agree that he is doing this at great personal expense, but that is his decision. That he is coming down on the side of the rule of law is not what I would say. He is breaking the law, and running like a coward while doing it.
Click to expand...
I agree that he should have stayed in the US out of principle but would he have been able to get his message out? Odds are he would have been taken to prison and that would be the last we hear of Snowden and any messages he may have had.


I happen to agree that I don't like what this administration has done in regards to PRISM, and the meta-data collection is frightening, and possibly a high crime if the Obama administration is proven to have changed the levels to more than what the SCOTUS ruled that they can do, but Snowden's path for that properly was to go to the appropriate oversight committees and work with them, NOT flee to our adversaries in the world and reveal what damages the US like some Wiki leaks goof ball...
Click to expand...
I felt the same way as well but now i am not as certain. I see fewer and fewer rights for Americans during this "War on Terror" but see no progress against the other side. Certainly militarily Iraq and Afghanistan were defeated, but is that the end of the war? I don't think so. You may be interested in this. http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/06/07/all-we-are-saying/

I see nothing patriotic in what Snowden is doing. Just days before Obama was set to have a sit down meeting with the Chinese leader, Snowden released information that we are cyber hacking China, and collecting cell phone data. Now that wasn't meant for anything other than embarrassing the US. You think that is heroic? I sure don't.....
Click to expand...
China knows Americans are doing this and Americans know the Chinese have been doing the same. As with the previous Wiki leaker, I don't see anything harmful coming out of this. There is nothing like the Manhattan Project on the horizon or the giving away of the names of Allied spies. It seems it's just embarrassing to the officials involved, what they might be saying behind each others backs, but apart from that it seems these things are overblown. I can't see where it will do any real harm, though i'm prepared to be proven wrong.
 
Grant said:
I agree that he should have stayed in the US out of principle but would he have been able to get his message out? Odds are he would have been taken to prison and that would be the last we hear of Snowden and any messages he may have had.
Click to expand...

Well, we still have somewhat of a rule of law in that, he would have had to have had a trial, a lawyer, and the right to not self incriminate. However, I am not convinced that his motives are in our favor as the people...Like I said, a true hero, or patriot recognizes the risk, and accepts that risk, not hits and runs like a little bitch.

I felt the same way as well but now i am not as certain. I see fewer and fewer rights for Americans during this "War on Terror" but see no progress against the other side. Certainly militarily Iraq and Afghanistan were defeated, but is that the end of the war? I don't think so. You may be interested in this. Belmont Club » All We Are Saying …
Click to expand...

Thanks for the article Grant, and I am not saying that I have it all figured out either. But, rather I can only give you my gut on the matter as I see it today....In the beginning of the WoT I as a conservative, I was absolute in my opposition to papers like the NYTimes releasing intel describing things like troop movements, all for the story line they wanted to pursue of GW Bush's war being ignoble. To do such they had to publish things that were confidential, and secret giving out enemies a glimpse into our actions that allowed them to adjust....In my mind, even though I can't stand what Obama is doing, I see this as the same sort of thing.

China knows Americans are doing this and Americans know the Chinese have been doing the same. As with the previous Wiki leaker, I don't see anything harmful coming out of this. There is nothing like the Manhattan Project on the horizon or the giving away of the names of Allied spies. It seems it's just embarrassing to the officials involved, what they might be saying behind each others backs, but apart from that it seems these things are overblown. I can't see where it will do any real harm, though i'm prepared to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

I have no interest in this affair to make pronouncements of right, or wrong in one's opinion. But I do think that all that we speculate as to what China knows, or doesn't know about what we are doing, is a matter that we can not know for certainty. At the very least Snowden gives our adversaries a propaganda tool to use against us, it is for that reason that I don't call him a hero, but rather a traitor....He is working against this countries interests in that matter, and the question must be asked, who appointed him America's conscience?
 
j-mac said:
Well, we still have somewhat of a rule of law in that, he would have had to have had a trial, a lawyer, and the right to not self incriminate. However, I am not convinced that his motives are in our favor as the people...Like I said, a true hero, or patriot recognizes the risk, and accepts that risk, not hits and runs like a little bitch.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the article Grant, and I am not saying that I have it all figured out either. But, rather I can only give you my gut on the matter as I see it today....In the beginning of the WoT I as a conservative, I was absolute in my opposition to papers like the NYTimes releasing intel describing things like troop movements, all for the story line they wanted to pursue of GW Bush's war being ignoble. To do such they had to publish things that were confidential, and secret giving out enemies a glimpse into our actions that allowed them to adjust....In my mind, even though I can't stand what Obama is doing, I see this as the same sort of thing.



I have no interest in this affair to make pronouncements of right, or wrong in one's opinion. But I do think that all that we speculate as to what China knows, or doesn't know about what we are doing, is a matter that we can not know for certainty. At the very least Snowden gives our adversaries a propaganda tool to use against us, it is for that reason that I don't call him a hero, but rather a traitor....He is working against this countries interests in that matter, and the question must be asked, who appointed him America's conscience?[/QUOTE]

It seems overall, J-Mac, that we share the same uncertainty in a couple of areas.. I don't have the confidence in the American government and bureaucracy that I once had but still have, despite the lest election, confidence in the American people.

Maybe Snowden is a patriot, maybe he is a traitor. I don't know. I share the same uncertainty about Snowden as I have with the US Government and the faceless bureaucracy which has become answerable, apparently, to no one.

It seems there is a need for more whistle-blowers in every bureaucracy though the government of the day always reacts in a similar fashion, and sometimes rightly so. Is this guy creating the promised 'transparency' or giving away secrets of the State, or just exposing some self serving politicians? I think I'll reserve judgement.
 
j-mac said:
Well, we still have somewhat of a rule of law in that, he would have had to have had a trial, a lawyer, and the right to not self incriminate. However, I am not convinced that his motives are in our favor as the people...Like I said, a true hero, or patriot recognizes the risk, and accepts that risk, not hits and runs like a little bitch.
Click to expand...

I am going to address this from two positions, one as a lawyer and the other as an ex-SOF team leader. As a lawyer I agree, we do live under a rule of law but the balance of power in our criminal justice system, and especially so in Federal court lies with the government. As I tried to explain in another thread regarding this issue, had Snowden remained to face the music he would have had his day in court and then gone right to prison. He would not stand a chance aside from the extremely iffy possibility of jury nullification.

Next, having been a Team Leader of an SOF mountain team, I can tell you that hit and run is a common tactic in guerilla warfare when dealing with a numerically more powerful enemy. So based on your comment, are you saying that our tactics of hit and "run like a little bitch" rather than waiting around to be caught by the overwhelming forces of the enemy made my men and I cowards and traitors? If not, why hold a common citizen with absolutely NO power or chance of success against the overwhelming might of the Federal government any less of a patriot because he "hit and ran?"

j-mac said:
Thanks for the article Grant, and I am not saying that I have it all figured out either. But, rather I can only give you my gut on the matter as I see it today....In the beginning of the WoT I as a conservative, I was absolute in my opposition to papers like the NYTimes releasing intel describing things like troop movements, all for the story line they wanted to pursue of GW Bush's war being ignoble. To do such they had to publish things that were confidential, and secret giving out enemies a glimpse into our actions that allowed them to adjust....In my mind, even though I can't stand what Obama is doing, I see this as the same sort of thing.
Click to expand...

I agree that the revelation of military secrets such as troop movements would be harmful to our combat mission and would not qualify as something the general public would have any need to know. But what Snowden did is NOT the same thing. He revealed government violations of our Constitutional rights. Any "harm" to our mission in this "war on terror" was minimal and irrelevant in light of the nature and depth of these violations.

The biggest problem I have always had with this "War on Terror" is the subjugation of our Constitutional rights to the needs of "security." Overblowing fears of possible terrorist attacks not only turned our shining example of democracy into a locked-down nation of frightened sheeple, it increased both the status and political power of terror groups in their own nations. We NEED to know when our government is over-stepping it's Constitutional bounds, regardless of how we are informed.

j-mac said:
I have no interest in this affair to make pronouncements of right, or wrong in one's opinion. But I do think that all that we speculate as to what China knows, or doesn't know about what we are doing, is a matter that we can not know for certainty. At the very least Snowden gives our adversaries a propaganda tool to use against us, it is for that reason that I don't call him a hero, but rather a traitor....He is working against this countries interests in that matter, and the question must be asked, who appointed him America's conscience?
Click to expand...

Had our government been operating in a forthright and Constitutional manner, there would be no ammunition to provide this "propaganda" for any rival foreign power. The funny thing is you seem to care more about this "propaganda value" than you do that our own governments malfeasance was the cause of it. So because our government screwed up and violated our Constitutional rights, and a citizen made it public which as an unfortunate side effect allowed rivals to point fingers at us, this make the act nothing but treason in your eyes? An astounding example of Orwellian double-speak..."Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength!"
 
Last edited:
It seems overall, J-Mac, that we share the same uncertainty in a couple of areas.. I don't have the confidence in the American government and bureaucracy that I once had but still have, despite the lest election, confidence in the American people.

Maybe Snowden is a patriot, maybe he is a traitor. I don't know. I share the same uncertainty about Snowden as I have with the US Government and the faceless bureaucracy which has become answerable, apparently, to no one.

It seems there is a need for more whistle-blowers in every bureaucracy though the government of the day always reacts in a similar fashion, and sometimes rightly so. Is this guy creating the promised 'transparency' or giving away secrets of the State, or just exposing some self serving politicians? I think I'll reserve judgement.
Click to expand...

Apologies for the sloppy post as i was on my way out the door. Hope it makes some sense..
 
Captain Adverse said:
I am going to address this from two positions, one as a lawyer and the other as an ex-SOF team leader. As a lawyer I agree, we do live under a rule of law but the balance of power in our criminal justice system, and especially so in Federal court lies with the government. As I tried to explain in another thread regarding this issue, had Snowden remained to face the music he would have had his day in court and then gone right to prison. He would not stand a chance aside from the extremely iffy possibility of jury nullification.
Click to expand...

So, does that mean that we should now proceed with the attitude that the ends justify the means?

Next, having been a Team Leader of an SOF mountain team, I can tell you that hit and run is a common tactic in guerilla warfare when dealing with a numerically more powerful enemy. So based on your comment, are you saying that our tactics of hit and "run like a little bitch" rather than waiting around to be caught by the overwhelming forces of the enemy made my men and I cowards and traitors? If not, why hold a common citizen with absolutely NO power or chance of success against the overwhelming might of the Federal government any less of a patriot because he "hit and ran?"
Click to expand...

No, of course not. You and your team have my deepest admiration, and thanks. But, I do see that as a bit of a false analogy. Snowden had the opportunity to go through channels and bring light to this without running to our global foes...When the founders made the statement upon the start of their defiance of the crown, that they "must hang together, for they will surely hang apart." They didn't run to China.

I agree that the revelation of military secrets such as troop movements would be harmful to our combat mission and would not qualify as something the general public would have any need to know. But what Snowden did is NOT the same thing. He revealed government violations of our Constitutional rights. Any "harm" to our mission in this "war on terror" was minimal and irrelevant in light of the nature and depth of these violations.
Click to expand...

What are your credentials to make the assumption as to whether or not the revelations impact were 'minimal' as you say?

The biggest problem I have always had with this "War on Terror" is the subjugation of our Constitutional rights to the needs of "security." Overblowing fears of possible terrorist attacks not only turned our shining example of democracy into a locked-down nation of frightened sheeple, it increased both the status and political power of terror groups in their own nations. We NEED to know when our government is over-stepping it's Constitutional bounds, regardless of how we are informed.
Click to expand...

I can agree about giving up freedom for security, however, it is NOT "regardless of how we are informed".... As a lawyer you should be among the first in our society upholding the rule of law that separates us from uncivil savages. Unless you espouse anarchy, we need to have a clear protected procedure to allow whistle blowers to reveal what they feel is in violation to the proper oversight, without just endorsing chaos.

Had our government been operating in a forthright and Constitutional manner, there would be no ammunition to provide this "propaganda" for any rival foreign power. The funny thing is you seem to care more about this "propaganda value" than you do that our own governments malfeasance was the cause of it. So because our government screwed up and violated our Constitutional rights, and a citizen made it public which as an unfortunate side effect allowed rivals to point fingers at us, this make the act nothing but treason in your eyes? An astounding example of Orwellian double-speak..."Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength!"
Click to expand...

Well, you can certainly call me ignorant if you wish, I'll take that for what it is worth. But, I don't want a society where people just run off in every direction half cocked because they think it is the right thing to do. It may have been, but it strikes me as the same kind of anarchy based action as Wiki leaks, and Manning. I don't support that, I at this time just can't support that.
 
j-mac said:
Snowden had the opportunity to go through channels and bring light to this without running to our global foes
Click to expand...

And where are your links to unbiased, factual proof that had he gone through 'channels' that his information would have definitely come to 'light'?
 
DA60 said:
And where are your links to unbiased, factual proof that had he gone through 'channels' that his information would have definitely come to 'light'?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? We see where people like those that blew the whistle on situations like Benghazi are not in jail...Now if you want to say that we need stronger protections for those who do blow the whistle, to entice them to report to proper channels, then I am with you. But, try not to play the disingenuous game that I made some statement of fact that must be backed up by a source that you need to agree with, it's stupid.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Let me stop you right here, because I do NOT AGREE with this premise. Neither of us know what Snowden's basic ideological position is, and whatever it is it would not necessarily be relevant to that fact he found our that his government was secretly spying on both him and his fellow countrymen.
Click to expand...

So not only did you avoid answering whether a hero needed to be righteous, but now you're also saying a hero's ideology is unimportant? Okay. I was only talking hypothetically.

He is an American citizen, not (at least as of yet) a citizen of either a fascist or communist regime. I'm an American citizen, and as far as I am concerned let the rest of the world be damned! Each country is responsible for making it's own way in this world. I don't advocate or support the idea that the USA is, or should be, the World's Policeman. As for Point #2, it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Point #2 isn't irrelevant. It's very relevant. But okay, so you don't give a **** about the rest of the world. Okay. Maybe Snowden doesn't, either. How high-minded of him.

Wait! Are you not an American citizen? Are you at all aware of our history, of the Declaration of Independence? The Bill of Rights, which was added to the Constitution to make sure our government could never tred on hard-won basic liberties? Apparently not, because you are posing false dilemmas and asking questions that anyone with any understanding of these things would already know the answers to.
Click to expand...

Ah, so rule of law is umimportant. Is it just important to be as 'Murican as however an individual interprets it be? Whatever anyone thinks is 'being American' is the best thing? lol are you serious?

Basically, even though our Congress is empowered to enact laws, they are still bound to abide by the restrictions within the Bill of Rights. The may not enact laws that infringe on these basic rights. One of them is the Fourth Amendment right to privacy,
Click to expand...

No, it's not. As a lawyer, you should know that. It's not a 'right to privacy'.

which cannot be infringed without "due process." Due process is defined as Court-ordered
Click to expand...

Due process was followed.

and must be on a case by case (individual) basis only, not a "blanket permission" from a "secret court."
Click to expand...

Is that in that Constitution somewhere that you're so loudly trumpeting? Where does it say that? Please cite. Make positively sure that it can't be interpreted any other way, unless you're prepared for me to laugh at you for suggesting that your interpretation is the only correct one.

These acts of "secret surveillance" violate that basic right. It does not matter if Congress says it's legal and the Executive Branch says we "need" it...the actions are Un-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

So no, there's no right, and no, these actions aren't shown to be unconstitutional. But thanks.

Well I was an army officer with a Top Secret clearance. I was exposed to a number of military secrets during my tenure in the U.S. Army. I agree that some secrets which directly affect the defense of this nation need to be protected. However, I limit them to war plans, technological plans and specifications, transit of personnel, weapons diagrams/manuals/and studies, lists of espionage agents and their whereabouts, and things of that nature.
Click to expand...

Oh, you limit them. Well, ya know, the professionals disagree. But I guess we should just go by what you think it should be cause...

On the other hand I am also familiar with the fact our government has a penchant for labeling things "secret" just because it would be embarrassing if the public found out. Worse, to hide things like this secret wholesale domestic surveillance, that our government KNOWS violate its remit and treads on American liberties. THESE THINGS NEED TO COME OUT! Regardless of how.
Click to expand...

lol

Now I am not even going to address your persistent efforts to make the Ellsburg case your example of "what a true hero should do." You are simply unable to comprehend how ridiculous your arguments are, or recognize FACTS that undercut them. You do not understand how the criminal justice system works, PERIOD! Nothing you have been saying regarding that case is either rational or relevant despite the fact you keep repeating it over and over. It's like people who think shouting the same thing louder and longer somehow wins an argument. Yes he was a hero, but NO, he did not "win" the case because it was a "cause celebre."
Click to expand...

Really? You're going to tell me that I don't know how things work, but you're going to tell intelligence and security professionals what they need to be doing? Not even a hint of irony there? But we'll get back to your point about cause celebre, cause you clearly didn't get it. Here we go:

I have been "ignoring your point about Jim Crow" because THERE IS NO POINT. It is simply is not relevant. I don't even think YOU understand why you keep bringing it up.
Click to expand...

It is relevant. You're in no position to judge, frankly, based upon your posts. Your position is that public opinion isn't changing court proceedings. I bring up Jim Crow because we all know that public opinion unequivocally did sway juries in the Jim Crow south, thus disproving your assertion. Your response? "IRRELEVANT!" No, it's relevant, sorry.

I'm sorry to be so harsh but it's just mind-numbing how you keep ignoring the facts and keep throwing up the same tired old arguments. I'm not going to toss in the towel, but unless you provide something new in the way of an argument I don't think there is much more I can say in response.
Click to expand...

You didn't defeat the first argument, so you're just thrashing around. You don't like the PRISM program. Great. Got it. No one cares. The government that you voted to represent you likes it. That's all. Vote them out, that's all you can do. But guess what? Those people you vote in, when they realize that they're in charge of the security of a nation? They're gonna do the same thing. So would you.
 
j-mac said:
What are you talking about? We see where people like those that blew the whistle on situations like Benghazi are not in jail...Now if you want to say that we need stronger protections for those who do blow the whistle, to entice them to report to proper channels, then I am with you. But, try not to play the disingenuous game that I made some statement of fact that must be backed up by a source that you need to agree with, it's stupid.
Click to expand...

So the answer is, you have got none.


Then your statement:

'Snowden had the opportunity to go through channels and bring light to this without running to our global foes'

...means nothing as you offer zero unbiased, factual evidence that he could actually do this...despite phrasing your statement in a matter-of-fact manner.


Which means you cannot prove that the way Snowden released his information was not in fact the only way to bring this information to 'light'.



Have a nice day.
 
Henry David said:
Probably Snowden is smart enough to be familiar with how the NSA and the US government treated his fellow NSA employee Thomas Drake, eh?

Drake played by the rules, stayed in the chain of command, and was promptly crushed by the federal government, by way of indictment.
Click to expand...

He was indicted for talking to a journalist and won the case. What do you want? lol You don't even want accusations of treason and espionage to be investigated and tried? hahahahahaha
 
DA60 said:
So the answer is you have got none.

Then your statement:

'Snowden had the opportunity to go through channels and bring light to this without running to our global foes'

...means nothing as you offer zero unbiased, factual evidence that he could actually do this...despite phrasing your statement in a matter-of-fact manner.

Which means you cannot prove that the way Snowden released his information was not in fact the only way to bring this information to 'light'.

Noted.


Have a nice day.
Click to expand...


lol, you might want to ask Henry David to tell you about Thomas Drake. You seriously didn't know there were internal channels for that stuff?

DA60: Why do you talk so much about this topic when it's clear you don't know anything about it?
 
OldWorldOrder said:
He was indicted for talking to a journalist and won the case. What do you want? lol You don't even want accusations of treason and espionage to be investigated and tried? hahahahahaha
Click to expand...

He didn't win the case, it was lowered to a misdemeanor offense and he pleaded.

Had to plead guilty for exposing waste. Yeah man, that's justice in the OWO. :roll:
 
j-mac said:
Snowden had the opportunity to go through channels and bring light to this without running to our global foes
Click to expand...

Where else could he travel? The whole world hates the US govt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom