• 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 Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

Redress said:
I did not claim they would shut it down. However, if he had followed the legal procedures, it could be very possible that the actual legality of the program could be reviewed by the judicial branch. That is appropriate. Violating your freely given oaths, not so much.
Click to expand...
So you won't elaborate on this classified information reporting program? I don't think it exists. Classified information is restricted to only those that are authorized to know about it. If you report that classified information to anyone outside of the program, you are violating regulations.

Not to mention, he wasn't a government worker, he was a contractor, so he doesn't have access to the same services that government workers do. Do you have evidence that he swore an oath to be a contractor? And do you think that oath was sworn to uphold the constitution, or to protect the government no matter what they do?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So you won't elaborate on this classified information reporting program? I don't think it exists. Classified information is restricted to only those that are authorized to know about it. If you report that classified information to anyone outside of the program, you are violating regulations.

Not to mention, he wasn't a government worker, he was a contractor, so he doesn't have access to the same services that government workers do.Do you have evidence that he swore an oath to be a contractor? And do you think that oath was sworn to uphold the constitution, or to protect the government no matter what they do?
Click to expand...
Snowden had the legal ability to report what he felt were abuses to the appropriate Congressional committees, or the Inspector General in this case.

As if individuals outside the parameters of national security have the right to dump classified documents that they happen to obtain. Simply absurd. Irrelevant though, as Snowden acquired the documents while still an employee of the NSA and through the NSA facility itself.
 
Redress said:
I did not claim they would shut it down. However, if he had followed the legal procedures, it could be very possible that the actual legality of the program could be reviewed by the judicial branch. That is appropriate. Violating your freely given oaths, not so much.
Click to expand...
lulz This level of naivete in an adult is disturbing.

There would be no 'review' on the strength of some minor civil servant's reservations. It's not 'very possible' at all. What's very possible is the likelihood of Snowden's untimely demise. What planet are you on, dude?
 
Redress said:
So you think the system for reporting issues with classified information is broken because of something entirely unrelated. That makes sense.
Click to expand...
What a joke. Three former NSA leakers - all of whom tried to work within the system before they leaked - made it clear in an interview with USA Today that Snowden was not going to be successful within the system. There's also the fact that the very people who run "the system" have said repeatedly that they approve of PRISM and the other programs so that, right there, tells you that his criticisms would not have been taken seriously or sympathized with. And then, you also have the fact that one of the problems Snowden had with the programs was that they were SECRET so releasing them to the public was his end goal regardless. Your argument - as always on this topic - is nonsensical.
 
I hope he makes it to somewhere he can be, and remain, free .. and live an long and good life.

our government is not going to make it easy though....they do not like it when their bull**** is exposed and they will come after him.
 
Redress said:
I did not claim they would shut it down. However, if he had followed the legal procedures, it could be very possible that the actual legality of the program could be reviewed by the judicial branch. That is appropriate. Violating your freely given oaths, not so much.
Click to expand...
Right, so you claim that there are legal procedures that would have genuinely reviewed the legality of the program, but you don't actually have any details on the programs and their effectiveness. How convincing. Also, I assume his oath included something about defending the United States from domestic threats as well. Well, this bull**** program is a domestic threat. He kept is oath.
 
a351 said:
Snowden had the legal ability to report what he felt were abuses to the appropriate Congressional committees, or the Inspector General in this case.

As if individuals outside the parameters of national security have the right to dump classified documents that they happen to obtain. Simply absurd. Irrelevant though, as Snowden acquired the documents while still an employee of the NSA and through the NSA facility itself.
Click to expand...

Funny, his oath is to the constitution, not to "not embarass politicians". The committees wouldn't have done anything, because those committees were the same ones who approved the idea. You're living in a dream world if you think one of the lowest ranking guys to know a secret can say to the highest ranking guys "What you did is illegal and violates the constitution. Turn yourself in and apologize to the American public".

I'd like to see evidence of a whistleblower protection system for highly classified information. You're just assuming there is one.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Funny, his oath is to the constitution, not to "not embarass politicians". The committees wouldn't have done anything, because those committees were the same ones who approved the idea. You're living in a dream world if you think one of the lowest ranking guys to know a secret can say to the highest ranking guys "What you did is illegal and violates the constitution. Turn yourself in and apologize to the American public".

I'd like to see evidence of a whistleblower protection system for highly classified information. You're just assuming there is one.
Click to expand...
Even if the programs he took issue with were deemed to be unconstitutional, that does not allow Snowden to release classified information to media outlets and the general public. Even when you anoint him judicial and moral authority, he's still in clear violation of the law.

Legal protection is available for those who take legal measures. Document dumps, as all adults know, are not legal measures and do not receive legal protection, nor should they.
 
a351 said:
Even if the programs he took issue with were deemed to be unconstitutional, that does not allow Snowden to release classified information to media outlets and the general public. Even when you anoint him judicial and moral authority, he's still in clear violation of the law.

Legal protection is available for those who take legal measures. Document dumps, as all adults know, are not legal measures and do not receive legal protection, nor should they.
Click to expand...
Who cares if what he did was illegal? You keep talking about legality as if it's the ultimate good. It is not - nor has it ever been.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Who cares if what he did was illegal?

You keep talking about legality as if it's the ultimate good. It is not - nor has it ever been.
Click to expand...
The quoted poster was attempting to legally justify Snowden's actions, hence the conversation.

I'm not fully convinced that Snowden's intentions were of the wholly pure variety, or that his actions will yield more benefits than consequences.
 
a351 said:
The quoted poster was attempting to legally justify Snowden's actions, hence the conversation.

I'm not fully convinced that Snowden's intentions were of the wholly pure variety, or that his actions will yield more benefits than consequences.
Click to expand...

His actions won't yield any benefits, unfortunately, beyond confirming we have a corrupt government and we already know that.
 
I think he did the right thing. I don't care if the government is pissed. **** the government. I served this country and it's government only to be illegally spied on? This country has lost my support and faith in it's ability to do what is right. My service is meaningless if what I served for was to be lied to and spied on.

I love the ideals this country was founded on. To bad our country no longer supports or even tries to follow those ideals.

He is a damn hero in my book.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Four questions for you:

Do sincerely believe that Snowdon can get an open and honest fair trial in America?
Click to expand...

:shrug: as much as any celebrity accused.

Who do you think is more dangerous to Americans? James Clapper or Edward Snowdon?
Click to expand...

Snowden.

Who do you believe is more likely to be truthful to the American People? James Clapper or Edward Snowden?
Click to expand...

Clapper

Who has committed a felony? James Clapper or Edward Snowden?
Click to expand...

Snowden and Clapper to a mitigated extent.
 
Am really kind of mixed on whether Snowden is a hero or chump.

But of the two countries that offered him asylum, Nicaragua and Venezuela, I really have doubt if they are all that humanitarian in this gracious offer. This will provide them a cheap opportunity to learn more about the US intelligence. Basically Snowden has left one spy operation to go work for another spy operation.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Funny, his oath is to the constitution, not to "not embarass politicians".
Click to expand...

Snowden was not an active duty member of the military - he was a civilian contractor. In which case his oath was to protect classified information.

The committees wouldn't have done anything, because those committees were the same ones who approved the idea. You're living in a dream world if you think one of the lowest ranking guys to know a secret can say to the highest ranking guys "What you did is illegal and violates the constitution. Turn yourself in and apologize to the American public". .
Click to expand...

:shrug: you are right that the oversight committees knew full well what the NSA was doing. Where you are wrong, methinks, is where you declare it to be illegal. Given that classified collection methods and capabilities must remain secret, when you have Executive, Judicial, and Legislative oversight all agreeing on the legality of a program... :shrug: you aren't really going to get better than that.

I'd like to see evidence of a whistleblower protection system for highly classified information. You're just assuming there is one
Click to expand...

There is. One of the things about whistleblowers is that half the time (guesstimating that figure up) the information they are blowing a whistle on (in this community) has already been made available to the relevant authorities.
 
Crosscheck said:
Am really kind of mixed on whether Snowden is a hero or chump.
Click to expand...

He's an idiot is what he is. Anyone else want to lay bets that China and Russia haven't both exploited the snot out of him?

:lol: hey, it couldn't happen to a more self-important fool.
 
cpwill said:
He's an idiot is what he is. Anyone else want to lay bets that China and Russia haven't both exploited the snot out of him?

:lol: hey, it couldn't happen to a more self-important fool.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct. He may feel like a major player right now but he is going to find out that he is only a pawn on the chessboard. Don't know if he has family but if a parent ever got seriously ill he will never be able to see them and to me that would be the biggest mistake.
 
Redress said:
I did not claim they would shut it down. However, if he had followed the legal procedures, it could be very possible that the actual legality of the program could be reviewed by the judicial branch. That is appropriate. Violating your freely given oaths, not so much.
Click to expand...

You're going to have a lot of sand in your ears. The Senate tried to investigate, Senators elected by us, and were lied to by Clapper and McCullough and you think there exists a proper authority that Snowden could turn to. Complete hogwash. That's the top of the chain so something is wrong and Snowden is making you face it. Quit pretending that there is a real legal option for Snowden to have used. You've watched too much TV and have a whole head full of TV information bought and sold by somebody and you think it is factual. You're subliminally programmed and a very successful example of Mass Media manipulation. Face reality and acknowledge that Snowden had no other reasonable options. This is not the land of liberty and justice. It's a nice Country, but on a slippery slope and sliding in a bad direction. Spy on terrorists, not USA citizens. It is blanket spying, wholesale collection of all communications because Corporate America knows information is power, not because we are terrorists. Do you actually trust your USA gov't. Keep in mind that this is the same gov't that disregarded the Geneva Conventions, practiced rendition, black sites, waterboarding, invasions, death, chaos, and destruction. Keep that last sentence in your mind and think about Snowden. Now ask yourself why the US has given its Treasury to Huge Banks. Entertain a few conspiratorial scenarios or try to believe what the gov't tells you. "Too big to fail."
 
A contract worker has to sign a confidentiality agreement when they work for the company Snowden worked for and other companies like that.

While the contract may not the binding the top secret documents are the property of the company and it is the fact that he stole copies of the documents that is against the law not the fact that he " blabbed".
 
a351 said:
Even if the programs he took issue with were deemed to be unconstitutional, that does not allow Snowden to release classified information to media outlets and the general public. Even when you anoint him judicial and moral authority, he's still in clear violation of the law.

Legal protection is available for those who take legal measures. Document dumps, as all adults know, are not legal measures and do not receive legal protection, nor should they.
Click to expand...
So in your opinion, even if the government is committing horrible atrocities, you believe all government workers that know about it should keep their mouths shut and follow orders? And if they do tell someone about it, they should be handed over for that embarassed government to crush?

Man, you are one of the hardcores. State over Citizens, no exceptions.

There were zero legal measures for Snowden to whistleblow. He could not tell anybody that didn't already know.

cpwill said:
Snowden was not an active duty member of the military - he was a civilian contractor. In which case his oath was to protect classified information.
I addressed this earlier. If


:shrug: you are right that the oversight committees knew full well what the NSA was doing. Where you are wrong, methinks, is where you declare it to be illegal. Given that classified collection methods and capabilities must remain secret, when you have Executive, Judicial, and Legislative oversight all agreeing on the legality of a program... :shrug: you aren't really going to get better than that.



There is. One of the things about whistleblowers is that half the time (guesstimating that figure up) the information they are blowing a whistle on (in this community) has already been made available to the relevant authorities.
Click to expand...

By your definition no one can ever whistleblow a top secret program. If he's not allowed to tell anybody without the clearance, and everyone with the clearance already knows, he wouldn't be telling anybody new. That means it was impossible to whistleblow through legal channels. There was nothing he could've said that would've made them change their minds or cancel the program, so he had no other choice.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I have to answer your questions with another question: When has the US ever given a flying rat's ass about another nation's sovereignty?
Click to expand...

America is a good county. We're just addicted to oil. Addicts in every sense of the word. If you replace the US with a crack or heroine attract and oil for crack or heroine, the similarities would be entertaining to observe.

To answer your question; Closing US military bases in the Philipines after to people voted to ask us to leave. The Panama Canal. Honoring the will of the people in their up until recent choice of the Muslim Brotherhood as the elected leaders of Egypt.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So in your opinion, even if the government is committing horrible atrocities..

you believe all government workers that know about it should keep their mouths shut and follow orders?

And if they do tell someone about it, they should be handed over for that embarassed government to crush? Man, you are one of the hardcores. State over Citizens, no exceptions. There were zero legal measures for Snowden to whistleblow. He could not tell anybody that didn't already know.
Click to expand...
You'll excuse me if I don't classify the programs in question as "horrible atrocities." Using such rhetoric does a disservice to the term and the victims of such.

Snowden, as mentioned before to no avail, had the ability to air his grievances to the appropriate authorities. He was also under no obligation to work for the agency in question as you imply. Distancing himself from the practice was unlikely though, seeing as he has admitted he took the job specifically for the purpose of obtaining information related to the programs.

The sensationalism is hilarious and pitiful. Justifying illegal actions by stating the low probability of success through legal means is, quite frankly, a childlike view.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So in your opinion, even if the government is committing horrible atrocities, you believe all government workers that know about it should keep their mouths shut and follow orders? And if they do tell someone about it, they should be handed over for that embarassed government to crush?

Man, you are one of the hardcores. State over Citizens, no exceptions.

There were zero legal measures for Snowden to whistleblow. He could not tell anybody that didn't already know.
Click to expand...

What atrocities? This is something that is not even illegal.

It is not state over citizens, it is rule of law. Laws that are put in place by those we elect to do so. Laws that we are therefore responsible form.

Snowdon had the legal right to speak to an IG and his congressmen. If they do not act, then you are **** out of luck. Maybe you should have elected some one else...



By your definition no one can ever whistleblow a top secret program. If he's not allowed to tell anybody without the clearance, and everyone with the clearance already knows, he wouldn't be telling anybody new. That means it was impossible to whistleblow through legal channels. There was nothing he could've said that would've made them change their minds or cancel the program, so he had no other choice.
Click to expand...

If the program is not illegal, the best he can hope for is that his congressmen get it pushed into judicial review. That is how the system works in this country. Just because you do not like a program does not give you the right to go to the press. We are a nation of laws.

You may not like the program, hell I don't like it and would hope it fails fails on constitutional grounds in the courts. That does not change the fact that national security must be secure. Sometimes there are no good answers. In this case, the best answer is to not elect politicians who will approve such a program, and to find a way to ensure classified programs actually do pass legal and constitutional muster. In the meantime, when some one leaks classified information, we have to do everything in our power to ensure they are brought to justice.

As soon as we let people get away with breaking our laws, because it is convenient to do so, the whole legal system is compromised. Laws pertain to every one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom