• 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
Or, because he started receiving daily briefings showing how horrible the world really is, he changed his notion of what needed to be done to protect the homeland?
If that's the narrative you've crafted in your head, go with it. Had Obama given a serious indication that that's why he now supports such programs, then my opinion would be different. In fact, as someone who voted for Obama, I gave him a significant benefit of the doubt before he responded to the concerns of people like me with arrogant and dismissive BS.

There also isn't any indication that these programs are necessary for national security so your argument holds even less water.
 
Or, because he started receiving daily briefings showing how horrible the world really is, he changed his notion of what needed to be done to protect the homeland?
This occurs to me when stuff like this happens, but... is being naive to how the world really is a legitimate defense? Is that a forgivable qualification for the office? Which leads me to...


I think Obama did what all candidates do when running for office, say what people want to hear to get elected, then do what it takes in their estimation to effectively run the gov in the real world. I'm not saying they always make the right decisions when they get in but when they promise the moon and the stars who's being naive?
Back as far as I can remember Presidents and Congresspeople claim that they can't do what they promised because the situations were more complicated than they realized. Really? Are they that naive? Are we?

Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I've seen the same scenario happen so often that I have to conclude they make these promises on purpose because we fall for it.
 
It's a shame, especially for Obama. He had a chance to be much more than he's turned out to be. He really squandered an opportunity.

He's a status quo supporter, there was no reason to believe he'd do anything more than to support and proliferate the status quo.
 
So you say:

If that's the narrative you've crafted in your head, go with it.

But then you say:

as someone who voted for Obama, I gave him a significant benefit of the doubt before he responded to the concerns of people like me with arrogant and dismissive BS.

...so what about the narrative you crafted in YOUR head? Or can we dismiss with the petty putdowns?
 
is being naive to how the world really is a legitimate defense? Is that a forgivable qualification for the office?
It has to be. Just as a kid who says they'll never do this or that later does just that because the reality of the adult world makes their principled objections unworkable, so too we must understand that people who don't know...don't know...

Mind you, neither my rejection of Snowden's crass opportunism or forgiveness of Obama makes me accept the vast data collection as a good thing. I think the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act has been stretched beyond its already overly broad boundaries, and I think we need to dial things back a good bit. Data collection on the movements of people in its borders is not an absolute need of the government...they ought to have a court order to collect specific information about specific people. However, I do support warrantless wiretaps in unusual situations if there is a strong need and very specific reasoning to do so, which must still then be reviewed by a judge and justified.
 
He broke the law and violated his oath, but then again so did top obama administrators.

Snowden broke the law and should have to pay for what he did, but under the Obama administration the law is subjective.
 
So you say:

But then you say:

...so what about the narrative you crafted in YOUR head? Or can we dismiss with the petty putdowns?
I don't follow. Are you claiming that Obama's arrogant and dismissive response was a narrative crafted in my head? That would be an odd claim since Obama's press conference happened outside of my head whereas your hypothesis about Obama's actions is exclusively in yours.
 
He broke the law and violated his oath, but then again so did top obama administrators.

Snowden broke the law and should have to pay for what he did, but under the Obama administration the law is subjective.

But when it's possible that "breaking the law" could be for the collective benefit/good of hundreds of millions of people is it really "breaking the law"?
 
This occurs to me when stuff like this happens, but... is being naive to how the world really is a legitimate defense? Is that a forgivable qualification for the office? Which leads me to...



Back as far as I can remember Presidents and Congresspeople claim that they can't do what they promised because the situations were more complicated than they realized. Really? Are they that naive? Are we?

Maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I've seen the same scenario happen so often that I have to conclude they make these promises on purpose because we fall for it.

They make those promises because that's what people want to hear. Any candidate that tells people it's going to be tough and we won't get all our objectives achieved may be telling the truth but it won't get them elected. People as a whole are idealistically naive about how life is full of compromises. As wonderful/hard as life can be it's never going to be this polyannish dream that exists in our heads. But we still have to reach for the stars just to get to the moon.
 
Any candidate that tells people it's going to be tough and we won't get all our objectives achieved may be telling the truth but it won't get them elected.
That's actually what Obama said. Spoiler Alert: He was elected.
 
So what if Snowden was more selective? They both made public top secret information, and, as employees of the state, had an oath of confidentiality, no?

I think there's a pretty big difference between the two.

Manning had a gripe against the U.S. government and started leaking information he knew nothing about mostly to hurt it whereas Snowden identified an immoral practice being done by the U.S. government and told the world.
 
It's far too early to know the full story. Do you trust your government? When it the last time you remember government extending your rights or returning your freedom? It doesn't happen often, if ever. Either you fear your government or your government fears you. Which is it?

That being said, why the hell would Snowden fly to Hong Kong to drop the dime? China must surely be slobbering over the opportunity to get their hands on Snowden's knowledge. If Snowden gave all this a great deal of thought why run to China's doorstep? Iceland might have been a better choice for him, but that isn't where Snowden chose to go.

There is so much more to this than we know. Is Snowdon above reproach? Is he being impeccably honest? Is the federal government above reproach? Is the federal government impeccably honest?
 
Or, because he started receiving daily briefings showing how horrible the world really is, he changed his notion of what needed to be done to protect the homeland?

Or no matter the party or the President's opinions, promises and beliefs, they will more or less be forced to conform to the even more powerful.
 
If found guilty, he needs to serve his time. What he did was a very serious crime, and his actions make it impossible to trust that he'll keep other information he has disclosed.

Is his crime more serious than the crime he exposed?
 
I think there's a pretty big difference between the two.

Manning had a gripe against the U.S. government and started leaking information he knew nothing about mostly to hurt it whereas Snowden identified an immoral practice being done by the U.S. government and told the world.

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.
 
Snowden didn't act as a patriot, he skeedadled to Hong Kong instead of facing up to what he did. Hell, I don't think his intentions were as an enemy of the U.S. either. He wanted to get famous and live the good life. Like Manning, I don't think he really understood what he was getting in to. I wish him luck.

You don't need to accept your punishment in order to be a patriot. I seriously advise you take a moment and consider exactly what a patriot is and seriously consider how silly it is to claim that if we are to be a patriot we must in turn give up our freedom. I would think someone like yourself would understand what a patriot actually fights for and why your statement is absurd on its face.
 
Snowden is the equivalent of Dennis Rodman, looking for a well-heeled donor to give him a life of ease as a symbol of resistance to American hegemony.

Snowden didn't act as a patriot, he skeedadled to Hong Kong instead of facing up to what he did. Hell, I don't think his intentions were as an enemy of the U.S. either. He wanted to get famous and live the good life. Like Manning, I don't think he really understood what he was getting in to. I wish him luck.
I thoroughly disagree with this.

The good life? Really? Country hopping? Always looking over your shoulder? Forgoing a $200K/yr job? I question you definition of the good life.

Because of Manning, and how he has been squirreled away and is now basically invisible and certainly mute, I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Skipping out to another country is what allows him (for the time being) to tell his side.
 
Unfortunately for Snowden, that is entirely irrelevant, and for his own safety, he should expedite himself for trial.

So for his own safety he should give himself up to the state? :confused:
 
You don't need to accept your punishment in order to be a patriot. I seriously advise you take a moment and consider exactly what a patriot is and seriously consider how silly it is to claim that if we are to be a patriot we must in turn give up our freedom. I would think someone like yourself would understand what a patriot actually fights for and why your statement is absurd on its face.
I am a firm believer in the concept of "civil disobedience", but I firmly agree with this. One should be willing to take their punishment if they have to, and there are select times where it even furthers the cause, but I don't blame people for also wanting to remain free.
 
I thoroughly disagree with this.

The good life? Really? Country hopping? Always looking over your shoulder? Forgoing a $200K/yr job? I question you definition of the good life.

Because of Manning, and how he has been squirreled away and is now basically invisible and certainly mute, I think he knows exactly what he is doing. Skipping out to another country is what allows him (for the time being) to tell his side.

If he is smart he is no longer in Hong Kong.
 
I am a firm believer in the concept of "civil disobedience", but I firmly agree with this. One should be willing to take their punishment if they have to, and there are select times where it even furthers the cause, but I don't blame people for also wanting to remain free.

People don't fight for the people to lose their own freedom or life. It just an unfortunate consequence of taking on an enemy that no one can ever hope to defeat. I don't see any reason why one must accept their fate willingly, but I see plenty of reasons to do whatever you can to survive. In my eyes, accepting the punishment is accepting that what you did was wrong and that your enemy is right in their actions.
 
He made no other promises? He's kept them all? Transparency? Fact Alert: Nope.
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom