• 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!

Russia and China broke into Snowden files to identify western spies, says MI6

Yes, and if you are old enough (I doubt you are) you were aghast, shocked I say, at what Daniel Ellsberg did too.

Does this mean you are proud and supportive of our institutionalized torture?


Of course I'm old enough to remember! The difference between Snowden and Ellberg is one did it for money and the other was just naive.

Institutionalized torture is now banned by the Obama administration. What's your point?

And no I'm not big on torture. It provides lots of false information due to the desperation of the detainee.

And contrary to our last president and vp, waterboarding IS torture which is obvious to anyone that is familiar with it.
 
Last edited:

The linked CNN interview of that hack was priceless. Paraphrased hack: "We don't know anything. Someone told us some extraordinary and explosive allegations, we granted him or her anonymity, dutifully wrote it all down as dictated, and published it without the slightest shred of evidence to back up a single allegation! Thanks for having me on!"

My favorite is the piece asserts Snowden has "blood on his hands" but then says there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone has actually come to any harm. Not even a paper cut.
 
So once again, Snowden lives!!!
 
Obama is prosecuting whistleblowers beyond the pace of his predecessors, though candidate Obama promised otherwise. While I wish he could have found an alternative, he couldn't have done as you suggested.

Turning top secret data over to foreign countries is never justified. If Obama wasn't to be trusted then he could have reached out to members of Congress, or the press. He just ignored every avenue available to him and committed treason instead.
 
Turning top secret data over to foreign countries is never justified. If Obama wasn't to be trusted then he could have reached out to members of Congress, or the press. He just ignored every avenue available to him and committed treason instead.

Bull****.
 
Russia and China broke into Snowden files to identify western spies, says MI6

Downing Street believes that Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies have used documents from whistleblower Edward Snowden to identify British and US secret agents, according to a report in the Sunday Times.

The newspaper says MI6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, has withdrawn agents from overseas operations because Russian security services had broken into encrypted files held by American computer analyst Snowden.

[...]
Russia and China broke into Snowden files to identify western spies, says MI6


This person is not a hero.

This reporter is a hell of a ****ty reporter: "we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government."
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times."

Nothing like running a story without questioning it, especially the 'official government position', then reporting it as 100% fact. Essentially the UK government made a claim, didnt back up the claim with evidence, and the Sunday Times reported it as 100% fact as an event that actually happened without any substantial proof.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-hes-just-writing-what-uk-govt-told-him.shtml
 
Brilliant counter argument.

The brilliance is that you had nothing to back up your original claim.

That's how science works. You make a claim. Now you have to prove it.

Until then, I'm in the right to say that your claim is b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bull****.
 
The brilliance is that you had nothing to back up your original claim.

That's how science works. You make a claim. Now you have to prove it.

Until then, I'm in the right to say that your claim is b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-bull****.

Hahahah! Science? Are you being serious?

So are you saying that Snowden was incapable of contacting Congressman or the Press and that his only avenue was to release massive amounts of classified data to the Russians?

To that I say "Bull****".
 
Turning top secret data over to foreign countries is never justified. If Obama wasn't to be trusted then he could have reached out to members of Congress, or the press. He just ignored every avenue available to him and committed treason instead.

Don't know what you mean by "TOP" secret data, and you can surely see what BS this op story is. I have no authority over Snowden's fate, but I will always be grateful to have confirmed what I strongly suspected all along. For my part, a US citizen will always get my pardon for having violated a US law in the commission of exposing government wrong doing, and most particularly when it involves any suppression to my civil liberties or violation thereof. Of course what I would prefer is better protections for whistleblowers that would give a Snowden a cleaner method for disclosing crimes committed by our government against ourselves! But then for all his promises to the contrary, Obama has prosecuted mor whistleblowers than his predecessors. An agency of the federal government with the power to do what senator Church warned of 40 odd years ago, with just 1976 technology, engaging in what Snowden revealed, really reaches out and grabs the attention of many of us, and the response is resoundingly NO!!!!! So whether or not Snowden's a "hero" I'll leave for others to argue about. But for me, his charges are waived in favor of the good he did for all the citizens of the US. Those that are upset or even angry over Snowden, should at least show some disfavour with the NSA, and should have been vocal in support of far mor reforms to that agency then what just recently cane out of congress.
 
Last edited:
Turning top secret data over to foreign countries is never justified. If Obama wasn't to be trusted then he could have reached out to members of Congress, or the press. He just ignored every avenue available to him and committed treason instead.

Wait, where's your proof that Snowden turned over top secret data to foreign governments?
 
Don't know what you mean by "TOP" secret data, and you can surely see what BS this op story is. I have no authority over Snowden's fate, but I will always be grateful to have confirmed what I strongly suspected all along. For my part, a US citizen will always get my pardon for having violated a US law in the commission of exposing government wrong doing, and most particularly when it involves any suppression to my civil liberties or violation thereof. Of course what I would prefer is better protections for whistleblowers that would give a Snowden a cleaner method for disclosing crimes committed by our government against ourselves! But then for all his promises to the contrary, Obama has prosecuted mor whistleblowers than his predecessors. An agency of the federal government with the power to do what senator Church warned of 40 odd years ago, with just 1976 technology, engaging in what Snowden revealed, really reaches out and grabs the attention of many of us, and the response is resoundingly NO!!!!! So whether or not Snowden's a "hero" I'll leave for others to argue about. But for me, his charges are waived in favor of the good he did for all the citizens of the US. Those that are upset or even angry over Snowden, should at least show some disfavour with the NSA, and should have been vocal in support of far mor reforms to that agency then what just recently cane out of congress.

First, Snowden had Top Secret clearance so he was working with top secret systems and disclosed top secret information.

None of what you say excuses Snowden's actions after blowing the whistle. Turning over top secret documents to the Russians for protection is an act of betrayal and cowardice. He lost all of my respect at that point. Had he stopped at revealing the existence of the program to a reporter then I would have had no problem with him.
 
There's no evidence he turned over documents of any kind to anyone. The "sources" haven't said where or when or by whom these documents were obtained.
 
First, Snowden had Top Secret clearance so he was working with top secret systems and disclosed top secret information.

None of what you say excuses Snowden's actions after blowing the whistle. Turning over top secret documents to the Russians for protection is an act of betrayal and cowardice. He lost all of my respect at that point. Had he stopped at revealing the existence of the program to a reporter then I would have had no problem with him.

Well, I would have preferred that the "greatest democracy in the world" would have avenues for a citizen to expose crimes against Americans without fear of prosecution, but Obama's destroyed that. I want that dealt with, as well as the crimes of the NSA. You may focus on Snowden all you wish.
 
Well, I would have preferred that the "greatest democracy in the world" would have avenues for a citizen to expose crimes against Americans without fear of prosecution, but Obama's destroyed that. I want that dealt with, as well as the crimes of the NSA. You may focus on Snowden all you wish.

He never tried. He had already left the country with his purloined documents in tow when his story broke.
 
He never tried. He had already left the country with his purloined documents in tow when his story broke.

You don't get it j, Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers is at an all time high. There's nothing to try. There's a malfunction in our democratic process that doesn't bother you, but Snowden does. What else is there to say, it's the same as last time, focus on Snowden all you wish. I have greater concerns about this.
 
Your position is based upon anonymous sources implying that files Snowden stated did not leave Hong Kong have been de-crypted by Russian and Chinese agencies. No proof. No specific source. Another government "Narrative" delivered to Mass Media stenographers and spun to suck in the naive. "Blood on his hands." A slander as the article also states no known injuries of their mythical victims. No documented sources. No official agency statement. Anonymity! Feel sumpin' slippin'?
:lamo
Still just confirming your position is based on absurd and conspiratorial thoughts.

And no, that is not slander, which just further confirms that you known not of what you speak.





Since what I said seems to went over head your head I will say it in simpler terms.You are trusting the word of know liars who have not offered any actual evidence to support their claim of what they alleged Snowden did. Why on earth would you trust what these people say? You must be one of millions of gullible people who believed Obama when he said "if you like your doctor then you can keep your doctor" seeing how you are so willing to believe known liars.
iLOL :lamo

Again you have said nothing relevant to the information provided and clearly know not of what you speak.





Government shouldn't have been doing ****ed up **** that required him to take this action.
Lame reply.
They did not do anything that "required" him to take action. He chose to take illegal action all on his own.





:doh Your article doesn't disprove what was reported.





This reporter is a hell of a ****ty reporter: "we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government."
"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government. Um.... we picked up on it... um... a while ago. And we've been working on it and trying to stand it up through multiple sources. And when we approached the British government late last week with our evidence, they confirmed, effectively, what you read today in the Sunday Times."

Nothing like running a story without questioning it, especially the 'official government position', then reporting it as 100% fact. Essentially the UK government made a claim, didnt back up the claim with evidence, and the Sunday Times reported it as 100% fact as an event that actually happened without any substantial proof.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-hes-just-writing-what-uk-govt-told-him.shtml
:doh
Apparently you think these reporters are going to jeopardize their career by reporting made up stuff. Strange.
 
You don't get it j, Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers is at an all time high. There's nothing to try. There's a malfunction in our democratic process that doesn't bother you, but Snowden does. What else is there to say, it's the same as last time, focus on Snowden all you wish. I have greater concerns about this.

You have different concerns, not greater concerns. And you are simply arguing a hypothetical of what might have happened while I am concerned with what he actually did.
 
You have different concerns, not greater concerns. And you are simply arguing a hypothetical of what might have happened while I am concerned with what he actually did.[/QUOTE]

And not at all with the greater crime by a federal agency against all Americans. My opinions clear, I consider Snowden's crime a lesser crime that trumps the governments greater crime. And your opinions clear to me.

Btw,, there is no hypothetical. Obama is in fact prosecuting whistleblowers at an alarming rate compared to his predecessors, which is a big fat lie of his.
 
I have a lot of time for Jon Snow, news anchor at Channel 4.

" ...It was a bold claim attributed to the Sunday Times. The only tangible evidence appeared to reside in the writers of the article, including the Sunday Times reporter Tom Harper – of whom more in a moment.

There was a sense of inevitability about the whole story. First Congress rejects America’s own surveillance law; then within days Britain’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism, David Anderson QC, follows suit. What could be worse? Suddenly Snowden was back on track for “saviour of the world” status. The fightback could not be far behind.

And there, alone, fuelled by un-named persons in the “Home Office” and “Downing Street”, rides the Sunday Times to recast Snowden as the most dangerous man on the planet. And there the story might have sat had it not been for a a very weak account of their accounts that the unfortunate Mr Harper gave to CNN in which the phrase “we don’t know” appeared to be the stated answer to almost every one of the network’s reasonable questions about the Sunday Times’s claims. ... "

Edward Snowden: publishing the position of the government?
 
:doh
Apparently you think these reporters are going to jeopardize their career by reporting made up stuff. Strange.
I didnt call it "made up".
I said they essentially just took the UK governments position, and ran with it.
He even says that when asked about he came about the story, "Asked by CNN's George Howell how senior British government officials know that Russia and China have indeed breached the encrypted files, Harper replied: "I don’t know the answer to that. All we know is that this is effectively the official position of the British government." Sunday Times Reporter Tries To Defend Snowden Story

This is just **** for journalism.
 
Turning top secret data over to foreign countries is never justified. If Obama wasn't to be trusted then he could have reached out to members of Congress, or the press. He just ignored every avenue available to him and committed treason instead.

He did turn the documents over to the press. Snowden hasn't released a single document. The press he gave the documents to released some of the information.

There is no evidence at all he turned top secret data over to foreign countries.
 
He never tried. He had already left the country with his purloined documents in tow when his story broke.

The problem is he knew what happened to Drake, also of NSA, who DID try like hell to go through the right channels. And they ruined him, destroyed his career, his reputation, buried him for years defending trumped up BS criminal charges.

That's the problem when you do that to people who try to do the right thing. You tell others, "If you try, we will destroy you" and so we can either accept that no one can challenge the national security apparatus, or accept that anyone who does do it will have to break the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom