• 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 - Jail, or a Parade?

Jail or a Parade


  • Total voters
    59
Both gripes have to do with injustices done by the US government, no? For Manning it was the information he had on the killing of those journalists in Iraq, I believe.

Manning didn't know he had information on journalists being killed in Iraq.

He just wanted to hurt the military so he started uploading documents.

There's a tremendous difference between their behavior, in my opinion.
 
He's former military, CIA, and worked under the NSA. When he released that information, he put a huge bullseye on the back of his head.

I would rather take my chances with reserving my own freedom than to just give up and allow the state to do whatever they want with me. The same applies to whatever crime I commit, really. He has already pretty much admitted he will get caught, but like a rational person he isn't willing to just allow the state to do whatever they want with him.

I'm really sorry that he isn't willing to accept he has done anything wrong by turning himself in like you desire him to do. I'm also really sorry he desires to be free. Both are really horrible, aren't they?
 
I didn't say that he "made no other promises". I didn't say that he "kept them all." I said that he told people "it's going to be tough and we won't get all our objectives" and then got elected contrary to your assertion that one cannot say those things and also get elected. Get it yet?


I said if that's all a politician says they won't get elected, not as an addendum. No candidate usually says only that comment or the summary. Do you get that?
 
I would rather take my chances with reserving my own freedom than to just give up and allow the state to do whatever they want with me. The same applies to whatever crime I commit, really. He has already pretty much admitted he will get caught, but like a rational person he isn't willing to just allow the state to do whatever they want with him.

He gave that up when he revealed who he was, what he did, and where he's at. Turning himself in is his only chance.
 
He gave that up when he revealed who he was, what he did, and where he's at. Turning himself in is his only chance.

The US government is the most powerful force on the planet and no matter what he was screwed. Telling the world his side of the story before the state decides his fate and stops him from being heard was a good choice, imho. Now the people will have both sides of the story and get to decide with at least a bit more information than just take the governments word on the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
The US government is the most powerful force on the planet and no matter what he was screwed. Telling the world his side of the story before the state decides his fate and stops him from being heard was a good choice, imho. Now the people will have both sides of the story and get to decide with a least bit more information than the government is willing to share.

This story will fade into obscurity, and Snowden will never be heard from again. He ****ed up, and regardless of what he believes was the right thing to do, he has effectively ended his own life. Right now, he has the opportunity to do it the hard way, or the easy way. Either way, he's at the mercy of the CIA's decision on how to resolve the issue he created.
 
This story will fade into obscurity, and Snowden will never be heard from again. He ****ed up, and regardless of what he believes was the right thing to do, he has effectively ended his own life. Right now, he has the opportunity to do it the hard way, or the easy way. Either way, he's at the mercy of the CIA's decision on how to resolve the issue he created.

Tell me something - whose duty is it to "rat out" our own governments illegal activities?
 
Good for him....

we have a right to know what our government is doing at anytime regardless of some ill conceived notion of safety. Freedom is not safe. Our rights should be sacred to us....instead we throw em' away like yesterday's trash
 
“The Fourth Amendment is clear; we should be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, and all warrants must have probable cause. Today the government operates largely in secret, while seeking to know everything about our private lives – without probable cause and without a warrant.

“The government does not need to know more about what we are doing. We need to know more about what the government is doing.

We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk. They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.”

Ron Paul: We need to know more about what the government is doing - Campaign for Liberty
 
The question is: Can you forgive the "crime" based on what the crime has potentially exposed?

What, you mean 310 million American citizens to more effective targeting efforts by hostile networks?
 
What, you mean 310 million American citizens to more effective targeting efforts by hostile networks?

:roll: Yes, that is what happened.
 
:roll: Yes, that is what happened.

It is. When you destroy the ability to collect against enemy networks, you hinder our ability to impede their actions, making their targeting efforts more effective.
 
It is. When you destroy the ability to collect against enemy networks, you hinder our ability to impede their actions, making their targeting efforts more effective.

Why are you ok with your government spying on you?
 
Tell me something - whose duty is it to "rat out" our own governments illegal activities?

The Press, it's why they have special protections written into the Constitution.
 
“The Fourth Amendment is clear; we should be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, and all warrants must have probable cause. Today the government operates largely in secret, while seeking to know everything about our private lives – without probable cause and without a warrant.

“The government does not need to know more about what we are doing. We need to know more about what the government is doing.

We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk. They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.”

Ron Paul: We need to know more about what the government is doing - Campaign for Liberty

Yes, we do need transparency in government, the promise of it was why I voted for Obama the first time (yeah, yeah, I know :roll:). However, I expect more from Dr. Paul where it comes to American history. He should know that the Fourth was never constructed to protect external communications. The US Mail is not protected by Constitution, at least the founders didn't believe so. In fact, that's how we caught Benedict Arnold - agents of the proto-government intercepted and read his mail. Quite a lot of that was done in the beginning years of our nation.
 
Last edited:
No. Spying on American citizens is unconstitutional and wrong.

Actually no, there is no constitutional provision protecting Americans from being spied upon. The government can watch you 24/7/365 and not run afoul of the Constitution. Again, why we need a privacy amendment.
 
Why are you ok with your government spying on you?

1. Because I individually agreed to allow them to do so

2. More broadly as a citizen, because I'm not sure that it is. The CIA isn't listening in to everyone's calls. If you say "Blackbriar" plus "Jason Bourne", that isn't going to translate into a real-time analyst marking you down for assassination (though if you say code words used by terrorists in the patterns that suggest you are planning an attack then your call may get flagged to get actually spied upon).



I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with these programs. The vulnerability to abuse seems immense. But neither do I find the broad reaction to be particularly well-informed or based on accurate depiction of the programs themselves.
 
It is. When you destroy the ability to collect against enemy networks, you hinder our ability to impede their actions, making their targeting efforts more effective.

Well, isn't that unfortunate. My ability to care is seriously lacking..
 
1. Because I individually agreed to allow them to do so

2. More broadly as a citizen, because I'm not sure that it is. The CIA isn't listening in to everyone's calls. If you say "Blackbriar" plus "Jason Bourne", that isn't going to translate into a real-time analyst marking you down for assassination (though if you say code words used by terrorists in the patterns that suggest you are planning an attack then your call may get flagged to get actually spied upon).

I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with these programs. The vulnerability to abuse seems immense. But neither do I find the broad reaction to be particularly well-informed or based on accurate depiction of the programs themselves.

You gave permission to the NSA to spy on your international cellphone calls?
 
You gave permission to the NSA to spy on your international cellphone calls?

He wants to use the "it's for security" argument. How is that argument still able to get traction? I really don't get how that is possible.
 
Actually no, there is no constitutional provision protecting Americans from being spied upon. The government can watch you 24/7/365 and not run afoul of the Constitution. Again, why we need a privacy amendment.

It violates the the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. It's an "unreasonable" search and seizure. The Court has ruled that monitoring a private conversation constitutes a search, and therefore, requires a warrant. So, warrantless surveillance of millions of American citizens is unconstitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom