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

RabidAlpaca · Jul 8, 2013

Surtr said:
Or maybe because we have extradition treaties with Germany, legally obligating them to turn him over.

That doesn't apply if they grant him asylum, which they could have.

Surtr · Jul 8, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
That doesn't apply if they grant him asylum, which they could have.

There are also many reasons why they wouldn't want a former member of the CIA to have asylum in their country after finding out that we're spying on them. I'm surprised that Merkel even wants to have a meeting with Obama after discovering that fun little tidbit of information.

cpwill · Jul 8, 2013

Dezaad said:
You make great leaps of logic to come to "Snowden did it to be famous". On that matter, I will say nothing more.

This is a logical conclusion based on the fact that Snowden's actions are contrary to his claimed motivations.

The same with the notion that China and Russia have a bonanza.

This is not a logical conclusion. It is pretty much what we call "fact".

But on the matter of the morality of revealing a classified program to the American public, which is all that we actually DO know he did: The morality of the matter hinges on who is actually right about the program under question.

No it does not. That can play into it (aforementioned atrocities), but the matter is not defined by it. Snowden's decision to place the American populace in greater danger when he was never authorized by them to make that decision on their behalf (in fact, when they trusted and paid him to do the opposite, as he swore an oath to them to do, an oath he betrayed) is a moral as well as a legal failure.

If the program is indeed a violation of American rights, it ought to be revealed. If the program is actually not, then it should not be revealed.

Snowden is not authorized to decide for the U.S. government was is and is not Constitutional. That is a power exercised by each of the three branches of government in turn, with final decision authority resting with the Judicial Branch. Snowden is no more allowed to decide that a program applying search algorithms to point-to-point data is unconstitutional (and it appears he couldn't care less whether or not a program is unconstitutional - much of what he has revealed does not fall under the program that is receiving all the attention here at home. It certainly is not unconstitutional for our intelligence agencies to be spying on the Chinese) and therefore expose it than I am authorized to decide that hiding the true identities of undercover agents are unconstitutional, and expose them.

I take this stance because of the nature of what we are dealing with. If a secret program is indeed in violation of our rights, and the whole government is in support of it, then we have no practical manner to redress the violation.

Indeed you do not. That is why it's called a "secret". Because it's "Secret". If we wish for the whole people to be able to judge the merits of secret programs, they cease to be secret and become (for intelligence purposes) nigh on useless. So vote wisely, national security depends on it.

On the other hand, if a prospective Snowden is in error, and reveals something they oughtn't, then what they have done is illegal, probably harmful, and they ought to be hunted down, captured, and prosecuted. To me, intention to do good here would not matter as regards the law.

Intention matters because it demonstrates premeditated intent to perform espionage. This is where the timeline comes into play - Snowden was in contact with the reporters before he ever started working with the NSA and would have come into contact with this program. He took much more than simply the PRISM program everyone talks about, and has exposed significantly more than simply PRISM. He took the job with Booz Allen to work for the NSA intending to steal classified materials, stuffed four laptops full of whatever he could get his hands on, and then scrammed.

I am comfortable with this view, and its obvious flaws. The reason is that its flaws are far less egregious than the flaws inherent to your view. Your view would have us stuck with a violation of our rights without a foreseeable end. This is flatly unacceptable.

On the contrary, we have the opportunity to replace 1/3 of our legislature every 2 years and our President every 4.

Snowden was right, our President, Congress, and Courts are wrong. In this situation, we must each make our own decision, and then fight for what we believe is right, in accordance with that.

Wrong. Were I a submarine commander, I would not have the right to decide that the threat from illegal immigration posed an existential threat to the US and launch nuclear missiles against American soil. Because only the government has the right to make life and death decisions on behalf of American citizens- because they gave the government that right, and they never extended it to me. I do not have the right to decide that undercover agents violate the protections against unlawful search and seizures, and out every undercover agent I can get the identity of. Because only the government has the right to make life and death decisions on behalf of American citizens - because they gave the government that right, and they never extended it to me. I do not have the right to make life or death decisions for other Americans without their consent, which is what you do when you release classified information. That's why it's classified in the first place - because it's exposure would represent varying levels of harm to the national security of the United States and the people who reside therein. Otherwise it wouldn't be "classified information", it would just be "information".

cpwill · Jul 8, 2013

Cardinal said:
Redress, I've asked you this before and you didn't answer: When a government agency carries out a highly contentious act that is arguably unconstitutional...and all in complete secrecy...what mechanisms are in place for citizens to challenge that act?

None. Nor should their be. For all secret programs to be made available to the broad citizenry so that they can assess for themselves its' constitutionality and act accordingly would destroy our ability to conduct Intelligence and place Americans at incredible risk. We as citizens do not wield our own power of statecraft at the national level (and only rarely do at the State or Local level) - we instead elect our representatives, and split our government into three branches so that faction may check faction against the abuse of power.

So. Vote Wisely. You are electing people who (surprisingly) might have a say no items of National Security.

cpwill · Jul 8, 2013

Ikari said:
Pfft, our Founders didn't work within the system. Sometimes the system is broken and you have no other choice than to work against it.

Hey, if you want to go to war against the United States and attempt to overthrow our system of government, feel free.

Redress · Jul 8, 2013

cpwill said:
None. Nor should their be. For all secret programs to be made available to the broad citizenry so that they can assess for themselves its' constitutionality and act accordingly would destroy our ability to conduct Intelligence and place Americans at incredible risk. We as citizens do not wield our own power of statecraft at the national level (and only rarely do at the State or Local level) - we instead elect our representatives, and split our government into three branches so that faction may check faction against the abuse of power.

So. Vote Wisely. You are electing people who (surprisingly) might have a say no items of National Security.

It really scares me when we agree in such a completely fundamental way. National security has to be secure. The security of the nation is one of the primary responsibilities of a government. And if you cannot trust the people you elect to do the best job possible, then you better get off your ass and work to change that.

cpwill · Jul 8, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
If all you're going to do is hurl insults at me like that traitor remark, I don't see how we could have a respectful debate, so goodbye.

Weren't you the guy who not a couple of pages back was suggesting that I was a Der Staat Der Staat Uber Alles sort of fellow?

1) It comes down to him putting the American people before the politicians.

No, it doesn't. It comes down to putting the American people behind himself. The American people are not well-served by the four laptops full of everything he could download being made available to the Chinese and Russians. The American people are not served by Snowden exposing ways in which we spy on the Chinese, or observe them spying on us. The American people are not served by enabling Al-Qaeda planning efforts. The American people are not served by exposing the ways in which we watch Europeans, or the ways in which we watch them watching us. The American people are not served by his undermining our alliances. The American people are not served by his being a propaganda tool for thug dictatorships. The American people are not served by his exposing our joint operations with allies around the world. The only person Snowden appears interested in serving is Snowden.

We deserve to know about this program. They can not just do whatever the hell they want.

Right on the latter, wrong on the former. The American people have decided through their representatives that they wish to have an Intelligence Community to enable National Defense, and that they wish to share the authority for running and overseeing the actions of the Intelligence Community with the three branches of government so that each may halt any others' abuses. The American people have not decided to authorize individual civilian contractors to make life/death or Constitutional decisions on their behalf in contradiction to the system that they have set in place.

2) There's no good reason to keep this a secret.

There are fantastic reasons to keep this a secret, the most important of which being that as soon as it is not a secret, it becomes useless. Making the specifics of a classified intelligence program public knowledge is like going to war with a rifle, but without any rounds. You can go "pew pew!" at bad guys all day long, but you've neutered yourself.

Which is why our enemies are already changing their TTP's, and we are scrambling - hoping - to be able to adjust and keep up.

3) You and your family have an exponentially higher chance of dying in a head on collision on the way home from church than you have of being attacked by terrorists.

you are correct which does not alter in any way the fact that the government is charged by our citizens from protecting us from the latter. We also have a higher chance of dying in a car accident than being gunned down by gangs. That is not a good argument for getting rid of the police.

4) So because they were already spying on us, that somehow changes things? Are you the type of person that when something's screwed up, you throw your hands up and say "It was already like that!"

No, I try to fix it and, if it's the way it is because changing it would do more damage, I mitigate it and work around. That being said, the USG is not spying on you. Despite what the tinfoil-hat crowd is saying, no one is listening to your cell phone calls. Your point-to-point data, which has been collected since there were phones, is being run through a search algorithm so that if you are calling or emailing or texting known terrorist contacts, someone can start spying on you - which they should.

5-6) I definitely don't fault him for not using the proper channels (whether they existed or not), because I know nothing would have come from it.

BS. You don't get any kind of excuse for going through non-proper channels unless you've first tried to do it right.

You like bringing up IG so much. Tell me about the last time an E-1 has called IG to challenge a presidential or congressional decision.

Snowden wasn't an E1, he was a civilian contractor with a TS/SCI clearance. And guess what, if the President and the Congress and the Judiciary all come to the same decision? Snowden does not have the right to counter it.

7) I don't think it has anything to do with him wanting to be famous. People keep saying "He's just doing this for himself". Which makes no sense at all. Yes, he's completely ****ing himself over, ruining his own life, to benefit himself. He just might spend the rest of his life in a cage, which he's doing to benefit himself.

:lol: yes, things haven't worked out for ole snowden nearly as well as he'd hoped. It seems that once again the world has failed to appreciate how special and deeply insightful he is :roll:. Read the guys' ramblings, its' all about how nobody else around him understood what was going on, how he Understood At A Deeper Level, he was the Only One Who Saw, etc. :roll: the guy must have been an insufferable co-worker.

8) I feel like Snowden could know it wouldn't work, just as I can tell you it wouldn't.

BS. Snowden had no way of knowing the depth of the Congressional read-in.

I once called IG on my 1SG for trying to blackmail me into re-enlisting, and all they did was talk to him. I had to get a lawyer through JAG and fight for 6 months before I won. And that's just challenging someone a few spots over me. How serious do you think a battle between the president and congress vs a contractor would go?

Hopefully he would get crushed, given that it wasn't the President + Congress against him, but rather the President+Congress+Judiciary against him. Then he could go back to being a little IT guy handing out JWICS passwords to people.

but forgive me, I notice you've failed to answer that end point there. Under the system you've described where every individual has the right to nullify the law as passed by Congress, signed by the President, and cleared through the Judiciary, what is to keep me rightfully from deciding that I think the existance of undercover agents violates Search and Seizure, and out every one of them? What is to keep me from making life/death decisions for other Americans on their behalf against their will as expressed through their representatives Just Because I Say So?

cpwill · Jul 8, 2013

Redress said:
It really scares me when we agree in such a completely fundamental way. National security has to be secure. The security of the nation is one of the primary responsibilities of a government. And if you cannot trust the people you elect to do the best job possible, then you better get off your ass and work to change that.

I apologize - but you are making entirely too much sense, and it is throwing me for a loop. Please immediately change your position so that I may be cured of this case of Cognitive Dissonance.

DA60 · Jul 8, 2013

Redress said:
It really scares me when we agree in such a completely fundamental way. National security has to be secure. The security of the nation is one of the primary responsibilities of a government. And if you cannot trust the people you elect to do the best job possible, then you better get off your ass and work to change that.

No offense...but what a load of patriotic-sounding crap.

Forcing private companies to secretly hand over personal calling records of millions of Americans is NOTHING to do with national security.

It has everything to do with government's taking advantage of terrorism paranoia to expand their powers...period.

Can you prove to me using ONLY unbiased sources of FACTS (not oponions) that not doing the above makes American national security noticeably less secure?

Yes or no, please?

minnie616 · Jul 8, 2013

DA60 said:
No offense...but what a load of patriotic-sounding crap.

Forcing private companies to secretly hand over personal calling records of millions of Americans is NOTHING to do with national security.

...

Forcing private compies?
Now that is funny.
Most of those private compies are hired to record and report data and they are paid rather hansomly I might add.

Oh the public data does have a lot to do with national security.

DA60 · Jul 8, 2013

minnie616 said:
Forcing private compies?
Now that is funny.
Most of those private compies are hired to record and report data and they are paid rather hansomly I might add.

Oh the public data does have a lot to do with national security.

What are you talking about?

I said the government forced them to turn over their records...and they did...

'Verizon forced to hand over telephone data – full court ruling'

Verizon forced to hand over telephone data

Dezaad · Jul 8, 2013

cpwill said:
This is a logical conclusion based on the fact that Snowden's actions are contrary to his claimed motivations.

This is not a logical conclusion. It is pretty much what we call "fact".

No it does not. That can play into it (aforementioned atrocities), but the matter is not defined by it. Snowden's decision to place the American populace in greater danger when he was never authorized by them to make that decision on their behalf (in fact, when they trusted and paid him to do the opposite, as he swore an oath to them to do, an oath he betrayed) is a moral as well as a legal failure.

Snowden is not authorized to decide for the U.S. government was is and is not Constitutional. That is a power exercised by each of the three branches of government in turn, with final decision authority resting with the Judicial Branch. Snowden is no more allowed to decide that a program applying search algorithms to point-to-point data is unconstitutional (and it appears he couldn't care less whether or not a program is unconstitutional - much of what he has revealed does not fall under the program that is receiving all the attention here at home. It certainly is not unconstitutional for our intelligence agencies to be spying on the Chinese) and therefore expose it than I am authorized to decide that hiding the true identities of undercover agents are unconstitutional, and expose them.

Indeed you do not. That is why it's called a "secret". Because it's "Secret". If we wish for the whole people to be able to judge the merits of secret programs, they cease to be secret and become (for intelligence purposes) nigh on useless. So vote wisely, national security depends on it.

Intention matters because it demonstrates premeditated intent to perform espionage. This is where the timeline comes into play - Snowden was in contact with the reporters before he ever started working with the NSA and would have come into contact with this program. He took much more than simply the PRISM program everyone talks about, and has exposed significantly more than simply PRISM. He took the job with Booz Allen to work for the NSA intending to steal classified materials, stuffed four laptops full of whatever he could get his hands on, and then scrammed.

On the contrary, we have the opportunity to replace 1/3 of our legislature every 2 years and our President every 4.

Wrong. Were I a submarine commander, I would not have the right to decide that the threat from illegal immigration posed an existential threat to the US and launch nuclear missiles against American soil. Because only the government has the right to make life and death decisions on behalf of American citizens- because they gave the government that right, and they never extended it to me. I do not have the right to decide that undercover agents violate the protections against unlawful search and seizures, and out every undercover agent I can get the identity of. Because only the government has the right to make life and death decisions on behalf of American citizens - because they gave the government that right, and they never extended it to me. I do not have the right to make life or death decisions for other Americans without their consent, which is what you do when you release classified information. That's why it's classified in the first place - because it's exposure would represent varying levels of harm to the national security of the United States and the people who reside therein. Otherwise it wouldn't be "classified information", it would just be "information".

Your whole argument rests upon the notion that we are better off with these secret programs remaining secret when they are in violation of our rights than we are with them being made public. We aren't. I would rather have no secret programs at all, than to risk having ones that remain unexposed when they are illegal (in violation of our rights). So, yes, we should have the capability to end programs when our government fails us. We are the final say, not the government. This reality should have the effect of causing government to err on the side of caution with regard to our rights rather than on the side of pushing the boundary, which s what we very much should want.

As to your example, it is apples and oranges, because it is missing a key component (it is vastly different in more than just that, but this is the one I will focus on): your supposedly analogous scenario isn't secret. We, the public, have the ability to debate the issue and settle the matter amongst us and ultimately veto our representatives on the matter. If we thought nukes ought to be turned upon the mainland U.S. (an obviously stupid scenario, but hey, I'm not the one responsible for it), then we could ultimately vote the right people in to get it done, and know whether it was carried out or not.

Redress · Jul 8, 2013

I just want to kinda post some thoughts on this, and point out what I think are mistakes some people are making.

The thing people need to realize is that there are two entirely separate issues going on here. The first is Snowden stealing classified information and releasing some of it. The second is the PRISM and MAINWAY programs. They need to be looked at separately because the issues in each is separate. It is entirely possible to oppose the programs, while also opposing the release of the classified material about those programs.

The government is selected by the people of the United States. We pick those people to exercise their best judgements. That is our form of government in a nutshell. The three branches have the "checks and balances", and the people have the right to vote the bastards out and replace them with other bastards. We pick the people who make up our government, or the people who pick the people. The government works for us and is responsible to us. Government of the people, if slightly indirect. The primary job of the government is the security and well-being of the country, of the people. Sometimes that well-being requires the government to do things which cannot be public knowledge. As a very simple example, we classify exact details of the capabilities of weapon systems, for obvious and well founded reasons. We set up a set of rules about what can and cannot be classified, when classified information can be declassified, who can access classified information, penalties for revealing classified information, and other aspects too numerous to list. We have to trust in those rules, and work to improve them where we find areas of fault. We cannot, under any circumstances, let Joe Blow contractor or E-1 make a decision about whether material should be classifies. That would lead to chaos and a complete inability to have any classified information. That is why we have very strict and somewhat harsh penalties for releasing classified information.

And here is the important, key thing. Even if we like that the information released is now available, that does not mean that revealing it is any less a crime, and any more an act hostile to our government, and by extension hostile to we the people. Security must be secure. Just because you may disagree with PRISM and MAINWAY does not change the fact that security must be secure, for the good of the country. I am not going to guess at Snowden's motives. No one here knows what they are. They are irrelevant. People cannot be allowed to simply release classified information for any political reason.

And then there are the programs themselves. I am not a legal expert. I doubt any legal expert has all the information at this time to even make a call on the constitutionality of the programs. Neither is clearly and absolutely unconstitutional or illegal(though some people will try and claim otherwise). So until a court rules, the government does have a responsibility to actually use the programs available to reduce the threat to our country and the people in it. The thing that most stands out in this is that there is to the best of my knowledge, little to no oversite on legality and constitutionality of classified programs. That to my mind has to change.

Redress · Jul 8, 2013

DA60 said:
No offense...but what a load of patriotic-sounding crap.

Forcing private companies to secretly hand over personal calling records of millions of Americans is NOTHING to do with national security.

It has everything to do with government's taking advantage of terrorism paranoia to expand their powers...period.

Can you prove to me using ONLY unbiased sources of FACTS (not oponions) that not doing the above makes American national security noticeably less secure?

Yes or no, please?

Classified information being controlled has everything to do with national security. Your paranoid fantasies and assumptions will not change that basic fact.

cpwill · Jul 8, 2013

Dezaad said:
Your whole argument rests upon the notion that we are better off with these secret programs remaining secret when they are in violation of our rights than we are with them being made public. We aren't.

whether or not they are in violation of our rights is a decision our form of government leaves to the Judiciary branch, which had already decided on the matter. So in fact the implicit assumption of this claim is incorrect.

I would rather have no secret programs at all, than to risk having ones that remain unexposed when they are illegal (in violation of our rights).

:doh heck. And sometimes soldiers kill innocents. Let's get rid of the military. Far better we have no military than have one that risks abusing people. And sometimes police abuse the rights of citizens - let's get rid of them, too; far better we have no law enforcement than we have law enforcement that may be made up of humans.

The argument you present is as irresponsible as it is hyperbolic, and it is utterly unsurprising why those of both parties charged with the protection of the persons and property of the American citizenry (that is, the first and foremost reason for being for government) have rejected it.

So, yes, we should have the capability to end programs when our government fails us. We are the final say, not the government.

Sort of. We are the final authority, and we have chosen to devolve that authority onto our representatives, who have the right to act in our name. Unlike individual contractors, who do not.

This reality should have the effect of causing government to err on the side of caution with regard to our rights rather than on the side of pushing the boundary, which s what we very much should want.

On the contrary, the effects of the Edward Snowden disclosures are going to be the same as the effects of the Bradley Manning disclosures - they are going to make the IC more secretive, less collaborative, and less capable of being effectively overseen for abuses.

As to your example, it is apples and oranges, because it is missing a key component (it is vastly different in more than just that, but this is the one I will focus on): your supposedly analogous scenario isn't secret.

On the contrary, the names and identities of undercover agents are indeed secret. But you are choosing to dodge the critical point - if the individual has the right to overturn the joint decision of all three branches of government when it comes to National Security, what is there to rightfully restrict the individual from overturning the joint decision of all three branches of government when it comes to National Security?

We, the public, have the ability to debate the issue and settle the matter amongst us and ultimately veto our representatives on the matter. If we thought nukes ought to be turned upon the mainland U.S. (an obviously stupid scenario, but hey, I'm not the one responsible for it), then we could ultimately vote the right people in to get it done, and know whether it was carried out or not.

Ah, but Snowden understood these things far more than the mere simpleton U.S. citizens he was surrounded by, or the crass and evil manipulators above him, or the fools in Congress and abusers in the Executive and enablers in the Judiciary. He was wiser, really, than the combined decisionmaking process of America's lawfully chosen representatives on the matter of National Security, which is why he had the right by virtue of being so pure and awesome to make life/death decisions for the rest of us without our consent. Just as I understand, as an Air Force General, that the Russians corruption of our precious bodily fluids demands First Strike, and that the enablers and cowards in the National Government who refuse to protect the American people in accordance with their Constitutional requirements.... etc. and so forth. We have good damn reason to say that individuals do not have the right to overturn our system of representative government just because they happen to truly honestly think it's the right thing to do - which (and this deserves to be repeated) we have no evidence that Snowden believed, and plenty that he did not. And when you join national security you sign a contract wherein you swear an oath to the American people that you will abide by their judgement and the judgement of their duly appointed representatives rather than your own.

You people are letting your distaste for what you think the program entailed color your analysis of the deed that Snowden did in committing espionage against the United States. You may want to sit and think about the illogical links of that position.

cpwill · Jul 8, 2013

DA60 said:
No offense...but what a load of patriotic-sounding crap.

Forcing private companies to secretly hand over personal calling records of millions of Americans is NOTHING to do with national security.

It has everything to do with government's taking advantage of terrorism paranoia to expand their powers...period.

Can you prove to me using ONLY unbiased sources of FACTS (not oponions) that not doing the above makes American national security noticeably less secure?

Yes or no, please?

yes indeed. Multiple attacks have been stopped using FISA data.

Dezaad · Jul 8, 2013

Redress said:
I just want to kinda post some thoughts on this, and point out what I think are mistakes some people are making.

The thing people need to realize is that there are two entirely separate issues going on here. The first is Snowden stealing classified information and releasing some of it. The second is the PRISM and MAINWAY programs. They need to be looked at separately because the issues in each is separate. It is entirely possible to oppose the programs, while also opposing the release of the classified material about those programs.

The government is selected by the people of the United States. We pick those people to exercise their best judgements. That is our form of government in a nutshell. The three branches have the "checks and balances", and the people have the right to vote the bastards out and replace them with other bastards. We pick the people who make up our government, or the people who pick the people. The government works for us and is responsible to us. Government of the people, if slightly indirect. The primary job of the government is the security and well-being of the country, of the people. Sometimes that well-being requires the government to do things which cannot be public knowledge. As a very simple example, we classify exact details of the capabilities of weapon systems, for obvious and well founded reasons. We set up a set of rules about what can and cannot be classified, when classified information can be declassified, who can access classified information, penalties for revealing classified information, and other aspects too numerous to list. We have to trust in those rules, and work to improve them where we find areas of fault. We cannot, under any circumstances, let Joe Blow contractor or E-1 make a decision about whether material should be classifies. That would lead to chaos and a complete inability to have any classified information. That is why we have very strict and somewhat harsh penalties for releasing classified information.

And here is the important, key thing. Even if we like that the information released is now available, that does not mean that revealing it is any less a crime, and any more an act hostile to our government, and by extension hostile to we the people. Security must be secure. Just because you may disagree with PRISM and MAINWAY does not change the fact that security must be secure, for the good of the country. I am not going to guess at Snowden's motives. No one here knows what they are. They are irrelevant. People cannot be allowed to simply release classified information for any political reason.

And then there are the programs themselves. I am not a legal expert. I doubt any legal expert has all the information at this time to even make a call on the constitutionality of the programs. Neither is clearly and absolutely unconstitutional or illegal(though some people will try and claim otherwise). So until a court rules, the government does have a responsibility to actually use the programs available to reduce the threat to our country and the people in it. The thing that most stands out in this is that there is to the best of my knowledge, little to no oversite on legality and constitutionality of classified programs. That to my mind has to change.

Your imperative is security. When it comes down to choosing between security and liberty on this matter, you would have us remain in the dark about the programs and thereby you are choosing security over liberty. I understand that you might be opposed to certain programs, now that you know about them, and that you believe we have some arcane legislative recourse in these matters, but ultimately you would have chosen to remain in the dark about the programs and been ignorant of any need toward activism. That is ultimately choosing security over liberty. Those of us in a differing position are choosing liberty over security. We are saying that, no, security must not be secure when it must be sacrificed for liberty.

There is a fantasy that both parties have been foisting upon us, and it is that we don't ever have to choose between those two things, that we can have something for nothing. These secret programs in violation of our rights are the result.

Liberty comes at a premium, in more ways than one. Americans need to face that fact, and make the right choice, even when our leaders don't have the balls to tell us the truth.

Slyfox696 · Jul 8, 2013

RabidAlpaca said:
You obviously do have a problem with his action of making the public aware, because you believe he should be prosecuted.

One does not go with the other. I believe in the law and justice system, and not arbitrary enforcement of it. I believe if I were to punch out a man hitting a child, I should stand trial. At the trial, I would make my case for acquittal. That's what I want for Snowden.

If all you're going to do is hurl insults at me like that traitor remark, I don't see how we could have a respectful debate, so goodbye.

It sucks when people misrepresent your position and make wild accusations, doesn't it? Remember that the next time you lie about what I'm saying.

Geoist said:
There is a difference between acting as a coward and valuing one's freedom over the opinions of some strangers.

There is a difference in standing up for what you believe and tattling as you run away. I'll come back to Rosa Parks for the difference.

Occam's Razor said:
If he were detained he would lose free access to the press and ability to defend himself in the press and court of public opinion.

Nonsense.

If your aim is to stop teh gov't abuses

...you run away to another country? THAT'S how you fight government abuses? That's ridiculous.

There is nothing heroic or courageous about walking out into a hail of bullets, either figuratively or literally.

I've already responded to this statement a multitude of times in this thread.

joko104 said:
He did own up to his actions by publically exposing himself, giving as reason so the government doesn't wrongly target others.

Which was 100% the right thing to do. Running away from having to stand trial for his actions was not.

So by "own up" you mean everyone who does something illegal should voluntarily confess and submit themselves to the government.

It amazes me how difficult this concept is for you people to comprehend. Go back and read one of my many other posts which shows this statement to be ridiculous.

DA60 said:
Prove he is lying.

My previous posts on the subject already did. Prove you can stop trolling at least for one week.

DA60 said:
Then you must respect Snowden.

'own up verb

Definition of OWN UP

intransitive verb
: to admit or confess frankly and fully'

Own up - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

He did EXACTLY that...by definition.

He confessed fully and frankly about his actions on this.

So, do you now respect him as you said you would?

Yes or no, please?

I've already answered your post many times in this thread before you even made this post. Try reading.

Crossroads said:
That seems to be unrelated. How does his own opinion on the government conducting illegal or maybe even immoral searches THEN also HAVE to mean that he must face that same government in its own courts of law?

Because he released classified information in the name of patriotism and then ran before he allowed America to work. He clearly does not believe in patriotism, he only believes in the parts which are convenient for him.

You say running is cowardly

It is.

but is it only cowardly because what he revealed wasn't that terrible of a crime (by government standards) AND that the punishment he would face would probably not result in torture and death? What if you up it a bit? What if the government had done something TRULY terrible, something violent and bloody and horrible (which it has done in the past, but putting that aside...) AND the punishment he would receive would be essentially a painful death?

You're wishing to deal in hypotheticals, and I'm dealing with facts. I cannot answer your question without facts.

Slyfox696 · Jul 8, 2013

DA60 said:
What are you talking about?

Talking:

1. To articulate (words):

2. To give expression to in words:

3. To speak of or discuss (something):

talking - definition of talking by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Unless you can prove he was mouthing the words as he typed, he didn't "talk" about anything. You apparently consider definitions of words important, so shame on you for so egregiously botching this one.

Have a more accurate day.

Redress · Jul 8, 2013

Dezaad said:
Your imperative is security. When it comes down to choosing between security and liberty on this matter, you would have us remain in the dark about the programs and thereby you are choosing security over liberty. I understand that you might be opposed to certain programs, now that you know about them, and that you believe we have some arcane legislative recourse in these matters, but ultimately you would have chosen to remain in the dark about the programs and been ignorant of any need toward activism. That is ultimately choosing security over liberty. Those of us in a differing position are choosing liberty over security. We are saying that, no, security must not be secure when it must be sacrificed for liberty.

There is a fantasy that both parties have been foisting upon us, and it is that we don't ever have to choose between those two things, that we can have something for nothing. These secret programs in violation of our rights are the result.

Liberty comes at a premium, in more ways than one. Americans need to face that fact, and make the right choice, even when our leaders don't have the balls to tell us the truth.

Security = the security of classified information(secure information), not the security of the nation. I think you misunderstood what I meant.

Whether the programs are good or consitutional or legal or not does not change the fact that secure information must remain secure. Joe Schmucatelli does not get to decide what should be secure and what not. That decision is above his paygrade, and for good reason.

Mr. Invisible · Jul 8, 2013

Guy Incognito said:
Where did this ridiculous concept of maniless come up? You have some very weird ideas. A woman is equally capable of standing on principle.

If you are trying to stand up to a (supposedly) corrupt government and uphold the Constitution, you don't do it by defecting to Venezuela. That is unprincipled, hypocritical, and an act of traitorous espionage.

If you are a man or woman of principle, and you want to leak classified information supposedly to uphold the Constitution, then you must do so in an open way, and subject yourself to the authority of the government you are supposedly supporting the interests of.

It's hard to communicate about these sorts of ideas with nihilists, because there is no common ground. This is a question of morality and honorable conduct, which is person a foreign concept to some people.

Want to explain to me how he is defecting to Venezuela? He is not defecting anywhere. Defection is defined as "conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine)." It is typically used when a person flees over to another country in order to aid them. He is doing none of that whatsoever.

"If you are a man or woman of principle, and you want to leak classified information supposedly to uphold the Constitution, then you must do so in an open way, and subject yourself to the authority of the government you are supposedly supporting the interests of."

So I assume you respect Bradley Manning?

Mr. Invisible · Jul 8, 2013

Peter King said:
So far Snowden fall is the treason light category/whistle blower that went somewhat too far. If he goes to Bolivia he will still be in the same category but if he goes to Venezuela he is solidly falling into the treason category for siding with an enemy of the USA (same goes for Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc.).

No, Snowden is not a traitor.

No, Edward Snowden probably didn’t commit treason

Carlton Larson, a law professor at UC-Davis, explains that this sets up two avenues for treason prosecutions. One is the “aid and comfort” path, wherein somebody aiding a country waging war on the U.S. can be charged, and the other is the “levying war” path, wherein one is charged for actively waging war against the United States, or an individual state.

He is not waging war against the US and unless the US would like to acknowledge an open state of war with Russia, China, and the like, then he did not commit treason.

“Treason against the United States,” the Constitution says, “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” It adds: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
What this adds up to is that a person has to do one of two things to be a traitor: either levy war or adhere to (form an attachment to, the Supreme Court once said) our enemies, giving them not only aid but also comfort. The two-witness rule has also made treason cases rare in American history.

There were not two witnesses.

Seth Lipsky: Revealing Secrets and Risking Treason - WSJ.com

Ikari · Jul 8, 2013

cpwill said:
Hey, if you want to go to war against the United States and attempt to overthrow our system of government, feel free.

Or in this case, a dude has to whistleblow on the government and run off so that he can continue to get his message out.

solletica · Jul 8, 2013

Mr. Invisible said:
No, Snowden is not a traitor.

No, Edward Snowden probably didn’t commit treason

Oh yes he did. He spied on Americans for no reason at all. That's treason by violation of the Constitution.

Snowden needs to atone for what he did. He should reveal everything that he got from spying and then submit himself for punishment in some way.

DA60 · Jul 8, 2013

Redress said:
Classified information being controlled has everything to do with national security. Your paranoid fantasies and assumptions will not change that basic fact.

I'll take that as a 'no' to my question.

Noted.

Have a nice day.

Have a nice

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

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

Surtr

cpwill

cpwill

cpwill

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

cpwill

cpwill

DA60

minnie616

DA60

Dezaad

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

cpwill

cpwill

Dezaad

Slyfox696

Slyfox696

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country

Mr. Invisible

A Man Without A Country

Ikari

solletica

DA60