• 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!

After 43 years, activists admit theft of FBI office that exposed domestic spying

Snowden delivered secret documents into the hands of the Russians. That's treason, period.

He released secret documents to the press not the ruskies.
 
He released secret documents to the press not the ruskies.

The Russians gave him a safe haven. You think they didn't copy every document he had, in exchange?
 
The Russians gave him a safe haven. You think they didn't copy every document he had, in exchange?

You really didn't pay close attention. Ed Snowden doesn't have the documents. You think he's running around with nearly two million documents (who knows how large each one is) on his person. That would certainly make him a target. Glenn Greenwald said that they made three copies and stashed them in three different locations around the world, ok? Furthermore, they contain little in the way of interest to the Russians because they are more focused on what the NSA does verses how. And then finally. Glenn Greenwald made clear way back at the beginning that the Gaurdian attorneys as well as attorneys from at least one outside source has looked over everything to be released to ensure that nothing that is released will be damaging to our countries national security. You STILL seem to fail to realise that Edward Snowden didn't set out to damage America. He set out to alert the American public to the fact that a government agency is violating our fourth amendment rights in a most egregious manner. That is what he has stated from the beginning. In contrast, you are unable to prove any of your claims about him.
 
You really didn't pay close attention. Ed Snowden doesn't have the documents. You think he's running around with nearly two million documents (who knows how large each one is) on his person. That would certainly make him a target. Glenn Greenwald said that they made three copies and stashed them in three different locations around the world, ok? Furthermore, they contain little in the way of interest to the Russians because they are more focused on what the NSA does verses how. And then finally. Glenn Greenwald made clear way back at the beginning that the Gaurdian attorneys as well as attorneys from at least one outside source has looked over everything to be released to ensure that nothing that is released will be damaging to our countries national security. You STILL seem to fail to realise that Edward Snowden didn't set out to damage America. He set out to alert the American public to the fact that a government agency is violating our fourth amendment rights in a most egregious manner. That is what he has stated from the beginning. In contrast, you are unable to prove any of your claims about him.

So, Snowden has zero acess to the information?
 
Oh, we'll that's certainly PROOF that Russia has copied all the documents.

The Russians got something in return for giving him sanctuary. Lets employ a little common sense.
 
So, Snowden has zero acess to the information?

So you didn't even read the post you quoted, that figures, you have your bias and your sticking to it. I'm sorry about that.
 
The Russians got something in return for giving him sanctuary. Lets employ a little common sense.

Sure, a stick in Obama's eye, nothing more. Now, have you any evidence that Edward Snowden gave anything to the Russian government that would put our safety at risk. If so please post it for me.
 
Sure, a stick in Obama's eye, nothing more. Now, have you any evidence that Edward Snowden gave anything to the Russian government that would put our safety at risk. If so please post it for me.

Put our dafety at risk? I don't know. Give acess to everything he had? You betcha.
 
Oh goodness. Exposing wrong doing has protection under the law. As a
business owner, I can tell you that it cannot be sanctioned.

Its not up to you or any one else to personally decide which laws are worthy of breaking and which ones need to be obeyed.

You people still don't get it.

These clowns shouldn't get a pass because they appeal to your personal political position.

We elect representives to decide whats legal and whats not, not provate citizens with an axe to grind.

They should be brought up on charges and face Jury of their peers and if they truly had conviction, they would have turned themself in years ago.
 
Employ some common sense??

Right. You have NO proof. Of course I knew that from the beginning and shouldn't have wasted my time.
 
It's patriotic, if it's done the right way. Stealing and publishing classified information is the wrong way to do it.

What is the right way? Has it ever worked?
 
Snowden delivered secret documents into the hands of the Russians. That's treason, period.

He did not give anything to the Russians.
 
The Russians got something in return for giving him sanctuary. Lets employ a little common sense.

They got a propaganda coup.
 
Its not up to you or any one else to personally decide which laws are worthy of breaking and which ones need to be obeyed.

You people still don't get it.

These clowns shouldn't get a pass because they appeal to your personal political position.

We elect representives to decide whats legal and whats not, not provate citizens with an axe to grind.

They should be brought up on charges and face Jury of their peers and if they truly had conviction, they would have turned themself in years ago.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
 
Its not up to you or any one else to personally decide which laws are worthy of breaking and which ones need to be obeyed.

You people still don't get it.

These clowns shouldn't get a pass because they appeal to your personal political position.

We elect representives to decide whats legal and whats not, not provate citizens with an axe to grind.

They should be brought up on charges and face Jury of their peers and if they truly had conviction, they would have turned themself in years ago.

Being a whistle-blower does not require being a martyr.
 
Being a whistle-
blower does not require being a martyr.

So now youv'e redefined the term of what a whistleblower is ?

When does it stop ?
 
So now youv'e redefined the term of what a whistleblower is ?

When does it stop ?

"The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing."
Whistleblowing legal definition of Whistleblowing. Whistleblowing synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

"whis·tle–blow·er
noun \-ˌblō-ər\

: a person who tells police, reporters, etc., about something (such as a crime) that has been kept secret
Full Definition of WHISTLE-BLOWER
: one who reveals something covert or who informs against another <pledges to protect whistle–blowers who fear reprisals — Wall Street Journal>"
Whistle-blower - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Going to prison or Guantanamo, torture, solitary confinement or other martyrdom are not required to meet the definition.
 
Its not up to you or any one else to personally decide which laws are worthy of breaking and which ones need to be obeyed.

You people still don't get it.

These clowns shouldn't get a pass because they appeal to your personal political position.

We elect representives to decide whats legal and whats not, not provate citizens with an axe to grind.

They should be brought up on charges and face Jury of their peers and if they truly had conviction, they would have turned themself in years ago.

When the head of the NSA lied to congress they became incapable of making an informed decision.
 
Back
Top Bottom