• 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!

is edward snowden a hero or traitor?

Is Edward Snowden a Hero or a Traitor


  • Total voters
    21

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Who believes that Snowden is a traitor or a hero or maybe you think he's a plant for something larger?

Many people believe that he is a hero, but those loyal to and working in government sense that Snowden is a traitor for leaking secrets...

I believe he is a traitor who used his position for personal gain and 15 mins of fame.
 
I don't know enough about what he allegedly leaked to form an opinion. Having been breathing during the Bush Administration made it a little hard not to know this stuff was going on with all the controversy about them not even bothering going to the FISA judges so I am not sure the revealing the existence of already known programs really warrants either "Hero" or "Traitor".
 
The traitor vs hero dichotomy is too simplistic for me. I support the leak and am, in fact, grateful for it. I consider the Verizon and Prism programs to be an abuse of government power and a violation of the 4th Amendment if not also the 1st Amendment.

While I understand that secrecy may be necessary in some cases, I also do not want my constitutional rights decimated in the interest of my "safety." If the government wants to implement such a broad policy of surveillance, then it needs to make its case to me. It doesn't get to do it in secret and then try to scare me into accepting their actions by telling me that terrorists are out to get me the way that people like Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein among others have been doing in the wake of these leaks.

Furthermore, the mere fact that NSA was neither secure nor responsible enough to keep its own information private makes it clear that it is not secure or responsible enough to have my private information in its hands. For all of those reasons, I support Snowden's actions. Leaks can be a dangerous game, but I think Snowden was responsible. But again, the hero/traitor dichotomy isn't something I buy into. He could be both or neither. What he is, however, does not take away the value of his actions and the information he released.
 
He's a criminal, and therefore closer to the first than the second. Whatever his intentions or convictions may be, they do not grant him the authority to play lawyer and release the contents of classified, legally sanctioned activities pertaining to homeland security.
 
He's a criminal, and therefore closer to the first than the second. Whatever his intentions or convictions may be, they do not grant him the authority to play lawyer and release the contents of classified, legally sanctioned activities pertaining to homeland security.
If they expose abuse of power, then yes, they do grant him the authority.
 
If they expose abuse of power, then yes, they do grant him the authority.
Snowden had the legal ability to take the proper channels in critiquing and seeking to end these practices, not the right to release classified information to media outlets.
 
I picked hero, but he is equally a criminal in my eyes.
 
Snowden had the legal ability to take the proper channels in critiquing and seeking to end these practices, not the right to release classified information to media outlets.


That's a load of crap evidenced by the fact that when questioned through the proper channels our NSA leaders "lied outright" to our Congressmen Wyden and Udall. They were testifying to a Senate committee. That would be "lied to us, you and I" because Wyden and Udall were representing you and I in proper legal channels. Prosecute Clapper and McCullough.
 
That's a load of crap evidenced by the fact that when questioned through the proper channels our NSA leaders "lied outright" to our Congressmen Wyden and Udall. They were testifying to a Senate committee. That would be "lied to us, you and I" because Wyden and Udall were representing you and I in proper legal channels. Prosecute Clapper and McCullough.
Don't know the details of the hearing you're referring to. If true, that fact still obviously doesn't absolve Snowden from his own legal responsibilities.
 
Snowden had the legal ability to take the proper channels in critiquing and seeking to end these practices, not the right to release classified information to media outlets.
Interesting. So you propose that he should have brought up the issues he saw with the surveillance program to the very institution that created, implemented and continuously approved the programs in all three branches of government - to the same institution whose members have made it very clear that they see no problem with the programs? And this, in your mind, would have done what?
 
Interesting. So you propose that he should have brought up the issues he saw with the surveillance program to the very institution that created, implemented and continuously approved the programs in all three branches of government - to the same institution whose members have made it very clear that they see no problem with the programs?

And this, in your mind, would have done what?
Snowden, according to legal authorities, was free to report what he felt was criminal activity or abuses of authority to Congressional authorities or the Inspector General in this case.

No clue, but the mere potential or even overwhelming likelihood of not getting the desired result from legal recourse does not justify taking the illegal route.
 
Snowden, according to legal authorities, was free to report what he felt was criminal activity or abuses of authority to Congressional authorities or the Inspector General in this case.
Which means nothing as a response to what I said. Responding to a situation where Institution X is abusing its power in secret by saying "you should report the abuse of power to Institution X in secret" is nonsensical. It is an empty, irrational argument.

No clue, but the mere potential or even overwhelming likelihood of not getting the desired result from legal recourse does not justify taking the illegal route.
If what's being revealed is an abuse of power, then yes, it does justify the illegal route. The law is not the supreme good.
 
My guess is that he was trying to be a hero, not a traitor ... time will tell which one it is, or it may be much ado about nothing ... my guess is that credit card companies and other private agencies violate our privacy much more and know much more about us than the NSA does ...
 
Which means nothing as a response to what I said.

Responding to a situation where Institution X is abusing its power in secret by saying "you should report the abuse of power to Institution X in secret" is nonsensical. It is an empty, irrational argument.


If what's being revealed is an abuse of power, then yes, it does justify the illegal route. The law is not the supreme good.
Sure it does. You asked what I proposed (in a rhetorical sense), I responded with what appears to be the legal avenues for complaints of this nature.

This abuse of power you speak of is a purely subjective conclusion. In any case, I can't agree with the notion that publicly incriminating oneself by releasing national security information is a more rational route than the legally prescribed alternative.

Perhaps on a personal or ideological level. Merely claiming abuse doesn't absolve him legally however.
 
Sure it does. You asked what I proposed (in a rhetorical sense), I responded with what appears to be the legal avenues for complaints of this nature.

This abuse of power you speak of is a purely subjective conclusion. In any case, I can't agree with the notion that publicly incriminating oneself by releasing national security information is a more rational route than the legally prescribed alternative.

Perhaps on a personal or ideological level. Merely claiming abuse doesn't absolve him legally however.
No, you are purposely avoiding the point. It is illogical to argue that someone who wants to shed light on a (perceived) abuse of power rely on the very institution that is committing the (perceived) abuse of power to honestly address that (perceived) abuse in secret, particularly when that institution has made it clear that they see no problem with their behavior.
 
No, you are purposely avoiding the point. It is illogical to argue that someone who wants to shed light on a (perceived) abuse of power rely on the very institution that is committing the (perceived) abuse of power to honestly address that (perceived) abuse in secret, particularly when that institution has made it clear that they see no problem with their behavior.
The Inspector General? Congressional committees? Snowden had avenues available that were not directly involved or obviously biased towards the practices he took issue with. Regardless, as stated earlier, the likelihood of not getting the desired result justifies his actions on a personal, not a legal level.
 
The Inspector General? Congressional committees? Snowden had avenues available that were not directly involved or obviously biased towards the practices he took issue with. Regardless, as stated earlier, the likelihood of not getting the desired result justifies his actions on a personal, not a legal level.


Clapper and McCullough are NSA heads and were testifying before a Senate Committee led by Wyden and Udall inquiring into alleged snooping/spying/surveillance within the USA. They were inquiring if any of these abuses of power were actually occurring. Clapper and McCullough both lied and said no surveillance of US citizens was occurring. This particular program PRISM started before 2007 and the Senate committee where the lies occurred was in 2012. These "foxes in the henhouse" are the ones you think Snowden should have gone through using the proper channels. Wink at the ostrich you're making eye contact with.
 
The Inspector General? Congressional committees? Snowden had avenues available that were not directly involved or obviously biased towards the practices he took issue with.
The Inspector General of what? The NSA? The same organization that implemented the program? No.

The same Congressional committees that were already aware of the program and continued to approve it? No.

Again, you are proposing that someone trust the institution he is accusing of abusing their power to seriously evaluate their behavior in private. Then, you casually say that he had "avenues" to do about this in another way without seeming to know anything about those "other ways". That is absurd and lazy.

Regardless, as stated earlier, the likelihood of not getting the desired result justifies his actions on a personal, not a legal level.
It may absolve him on a legal level - that remains to be seen. On ethical grounds, it certainly does.
 
Don't know the details of the hearing you're referring to. If true, that fact still obviously doesn't absolve Snowden from his own legal responsibilities.

Abuses of the law destroy the moral authority of the law, and with it any need to obey it.
 
Who believes that Snowden is a traitor or a hero or maybe you think he's a plant for something larger?

Many people believe that he is a hero, but those loyal to and working in government sense that Snowden is a traitor for leaking secrets...

I believe he is a traitor who used his position for personal gain and 15 mins of fame.

I hope he ain't a plant for something larger. As it stands, I consider him hero. He has alerted the People to the gross misconduct of action by the government against our rights; and there is no higher form of patriotism than that.
 
Abuses of the law destroy the moral authority of the law, and with it any need to obey it.
Abuses that have not yet been demonstrated. In any case, the law he's by all accounts guilty of violating is an offense regardless of whether or not the abuse actually occurred.
 
Which means nothing as a response to what I said. Responding to a situation where Institution X is abusing its power in secret by saying "you should report the abuse of power to Institution X in secret" is nonsensical. It is an empty, irrational argument.

That only makes sense if you think the American government is monolithic. With the bickering between parties and branches of government, you should know that's not at all the case.

One person basically decided that he was the ultimate arbiter of what was right. That he, alone, should decide what the world knew. That he, above scores of other people- all of whom were either elected or appointed by those elected- knew what was best. You people go on and on and about fascism and dictatorship and yet you support this guy who took things into his own hands above a multitude of people whose jobs were to actually provide oversight on this.

Pretty ironic and hypocritical. You're not against a person calling the shots however he wants to, everyone else be damned, you're just against someone doing it when you don't agree with the decisions. At least be honest about that, don't pretend you're against dictatorial situations.
 
Abuses that have not yet been demonstrated. In any case, the law he's by all accounts guilty of violating is an offense regardless of whether or not the abuse actually occurred.

The law that he is accountable is to one Americans feel increasingly unable to respect. Like its something that didn't originate with us and doesn't reflect who we are as a people.

Once people don't respect the law as a protective force for their community, the government that administers it either has to make them mortally afraid for their lives and that of their families or reform itself.
 
The Inspector General of what? The NSA? The same organization that implemented the program? No.The same Congressional committees that were already aware of the program and continued to approve it? No. Again, you are proposing that someone trust the institution he is accusing of abusing their power to seriously evaluate their behavior in private.

Then, you casually say that he had "avenues" to do about this in another way without seeming to know anything about those "other ways".

That is absurd and lazy.

It may absolve him on a legal level - that remains to be seen. On ethical grounds, it certainly does.
I find it hard to believe that if demonstrable abuse were in fact occurring, he would have failed to find a sympathetic ear (especially given the political opportunity to impugn the current administration and/or the tendency of the left to reject portions of the Patriot Act). All in all a useless debate though, as it changes not a bit the framework set in place. Again, the likelihood of failure through legal means does not justify running roughshod over the system itself.

What else ya want? Not a legal scholar by any means.

Those are simply the facts of the matter. If you want to rationalize his actions then by all means.

Not in my estimation, but I understand the sentiment.
 
The law that he is accountable is to one Americans feel increasingly unable to respect. Like its something that didn't originate with us and doesn't reflect who we are as a people.

Once people don't respect the law as a protective force for their community, the government that administers it either has to make them mortally afraid for their lives and that of their families or reform itself.
I'll assume you're speaking of the provision about leaking documents related to national security, as Snowden was not in any way obligated to work for the NSA or participate in the activities in question.
 
Back
Top Bottom