is edward snowden a hero or traitor?

Morality Games said:

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.

Click to expand...

You're not going to have a referendum on every policy at a state level. Especially things that need to be kept secret. What is the government supposed to do, send out a letter to every American citizen and put a 'SHHHH DON'T SAY ANYTHING' at the end?

Here's the thing: there are people that are responsible for the protection of their populace and then there's the populace. The populace doesn't think about security, doesn't take any responsibility for it, and only thinks about it when they want to complain- either because the security measures annoy or insult them (like now), or because something slipped past the security. That's why policymakers and such really don't care much for the opinion of the populace. The populace isn't going to be happy either way, so they should at least shut up.

a351 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm using the word "law" abstractly as a stand-in for our entire national security policy. Collecting the personal information of tens of millions of our citizens is something that your average American likely feels the people should be consulted on. That is, it ought to be debated and contested, and in all probability, rejected as too intrusive.

In contrast to that sentiment, the government takes the view that it has a right to do so based on laws like the Patriot Act that very few Americans (even those who supported them) feel as though they were deeply engaged with or that it really reflects who we are as a people.

When first composed, the Patriot Act was considered bad enough by people across the political spectrum because it gave the government the right to intrude into the privacy of a handful of socially marginalized people. Yet it seems as though its parameters took a big leap forward.

Its part of the trend where the government has become extremely responsive to special interest groups, patterning almost all policies after what such groups desire or have proposed, and the growing sense (among the middle class in particular) that ordinary Americans have no real voice in our government.

Send a drone to Hong Kong.

Mathematician said:

Send a drone to Hong Kong.

Click to expand...

I think last time a criminal ran to Hong Kong, we sent in Batman after him.

OldWorldOrder said:

You're not going to have a referendum on every policy at a state level. Especially things that need to be kept secret. What is the government supposed to do, send out a letter to every American citizen and put a 'SHHHH DON'T SAY ANYTHING' at the end?

Here's the thing: there are people that are responsible for the protection of their populace and then there's the populace. The populace doesn't think about security, doesn't take any responsibility for it, and only thinks about it when they want to complain- either because the security measures annoy or insult them (like now), or because something slipped past the security. That's why policymakers and such really don't care much for the opinion of the populace. The populace isn't going to be happy either way, so they should at least shut up.

Click to expand...

That works great when the leadership is responsible and deeply invested in the well being of their people and the future of the country. That's not something that can be said to characterize our present government, which is seeded with greedy and vicious people who get selected through procedures that have long since been overtaken by special interest groups and pushed out the influence of ordinary Americans.

I'm certainly not non-critical of the general populace. The entire situation we are in is the result of a collective disengagement of the American people, who allowed our political parties and institutions to get taken over piece by piece, refusing to resist or oppose except in arbitrary, partisan, and mostly unhelpful ways. We have a disillusioned public that is complicit in its own misery and loss of control and a government of greedy, vicious rulers totally under the sway special interest groups who only want too put as much of their burdens as they can't get away on the rest of society.

Morality Games said:

That works great when the leadership is responsible and deeply invested in the well being of their people and the future of the country. That's not something that can be said to characterize our present government, which is seeded with greedy and vicious people who get selected through procedures that have long since been overtaken by special interest groups and pushed out the influence of ordinary Americans.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it works 'great' or not, it still works better than having an open secret among 300 million plus people, the vast majority of which are unqualified and even those that are have no interest in being responsible for security .

I'm certainly not non-critical of the general populace. The entire situation we are in is the result of a collective disengagement of the American people, who allowed our political parties and institutions to get taken over piece by piece, refusing to resist or oppose except in arbitrary, partisan, and mostly unhelpful ways. We have a disengaged, largely disillusioned public and a government of greedy, vicious rulers totally under the sway special interest groups who only want too put as much of their burdens as they can't get away on the rest of society.

Click to expand...

Which is a great reason to keep them (the general public) at an arm's length and get involved with government, intelligence, security, and the like if you have an interest in it.

It doesn't matter if it works 'great' or not, it still works better than having an open secret among 300 million plus people, the vast majority of which are unqualified and even those that are have no interest in being responsible for security.

Click to expand...

I mean to say that it has no credibility whatsoever. Even if it looks perfectly reasonable and correct, it doesn't matter because of that lack of credibility. You can't look at a single representative in Congress an say, "I trust that guy to look after me and my family" ahead of "his own interests and that of the special interests that facilitated his rise to power." Even if it looked like such a person might be competent, there is no real compulsion to cooperate with him or believe what he says beyond your own convenience.

Which is a great reason to keep them (the general public) at an arm's length and get involved with government, intelligence, security, and the like if you have an interest in it.

Click to expand...

We're a democratic society. There is no legitimate authorization for spying on the entire body of American people except from the American people. There's no one else anywhere who has the authority or standing to even propose the idea.

Morality Games said:

I mean to say that it has no credibility whatsoever. Even if it looks perfectly reasonable and correct, it doesn't matter because of that lack of credibility. You can't look at a single representative in Congress an say, "I trust that guy to look after me and my family" ahead of "his own interests and that of the special interests that facilitated his rise to power." Even if it looked like such a person might be competent, there is no real compulsion to cooperate with him or believe what he says beyond your own convenience.

Click to expand...

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. No credibility whatsoever? lol

We're a democratic society. There is no legitimate authorization for spying on the entire body of American people except from the American people. There's no one else anywhere who has the authority or standing to even propose the idea.

Click to expand...

But again, there's not going to be a national referendum about Top Secret things. The people the populace voted for made the decision. What more do you want?

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. No credibility whatsoever? lol

Click to expand...

My main point is that there is no natural law that endows American politicians or bureaucrats with the right to independently make major transformative decisions for the country without engaging the public in discussion about those changes. While they have some right to innovate when responding to new challenges, abruptly deciding that you are allowed to access all the available personal information of every single person in the country would be like the government saying that nobody could buy cars after they became commercially available while never having a dialogue with either the manufacturers or the people as a whole about the ban.

But again, there's not going to be a national referendum about Top Secret things. The people the populace voted for made the decision. What more do you want?

Click to expand...

As organized, the representative aspect of government is inadequate to its task. The government is not responsive to the working man and has taken considerable liberties with the country's future and prosperity for the sake of special interest groups. To the extent that continues to be the case, it is a government that, like the government that enforced Prohibition in the 1920s, cannot expect respect or cooperation.

Morality Games said:

My main point is that there is no natural law that endows American politicians or bureaucrats with the right to independently make major transformative decisions for the country without engaging the public in discussion about those changes. While they have some right to innovate when responding to new challenges, abruptly deciding that you are allowed to access all the available personal information of every single person in the country would be like the government saying that nobody could buy cars after they became commercially available while never having a dialogue with either the manufacturers or the people as a whole about the ban.

Click to expand...

Would the meaning behind that ban need any secrecy?

As organized, the representative aspect of government is inadequate to its task. The government is not responsive to the working man and has taken considerable liberties with the country's future and prosperity for the sake of special interest groups. To the extent that continues to be the case, it is a government that, like the government that enforced Prohibition in the 1920s, cannot expect respect or cooperation.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but has little to do with the facts of this case as it is. You're not telling me what you 'want', you're just saying you're unhappy with this. It's like a guy driving down the street: one day he complains about potholes and asks if anyone is ever going to bother to fix this, the next day, while waiting in traffic for construction crews fixing the potholes, he complains about said traffic.

Would the meaning behind that ban need any secrecy?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter if it did. In the common law (the body of law the U.S. Constitution that was produced from and now governs) the extent to which the government can intrude into the life and privacy of others is a carefully regulated process because the culture that created the common law (and thus the U.S. Constitution) values those things as part of its way of life. Our polity enjoys broad freedom to intrude into the lives and privacy of certain non-Americans, partly because Americans don't care about them, and so accept the government's logic that those people needed to be investigated at face value. That is one thing, and is not without controversy its own right. However, our polity never enjoyed broad freedom to intrude into the lives and privacy of its own citizens.


Our government has no right to such secrecy unless it is through the popular acceptance of the American public, which is something our elected representatives are supposed to reflect. Elected representatives and national security bureaucrats can't create that right for themselves, unless it is through force and fear.

That's fine, but has little to do with the facts of this case as it is. You're not telling me what you 'want', you're just saying you're unhappy with this. It's like a guy driving down the street: one day he complains about potholes and asks if anyone is ever going to bother to fix this, the next day, while waiting in traffic for construction crews fixing the potholes, he complains about said traffic.

Click to expand...

It's not about what I want, or really, about representative government, or even abut the U.S. Constitution and the country's laws. Governments that don't live up to what is expected of them and lose the respect of those they govern also lose their authority, and eventually, all the power that entails. In the case of Prohibition, the government was virtually powerless to enforce an effective ban no matter how many resources it devoted to this task.


The same holds of unsanctioned intrusions into American privacy.

Would the meaning behind that ban need any secrecy?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter if it did. In the common law (the body of law the U.S. Constitution that was produced from and now governs) the extent to which the government can intrude into the life and privacy of others is a carefully regulated process because the culture that created the common law (and thus the U.S. Constitution) values those things as part of its way of life. Our polity enjoys broad freedom to intrude into the lives and privacy of certain non-Americans, partly because Americans don't care about them, and so accept the logic of the government at face value. However, our polity never enjoyed broad freedom to intrude into the lives and privacy of its own citizens.


There is no right to secrecy unless it is through the popular acceptance of the American public that our personal information has to be monitored for possible threats. Elected representatives and national security bureaucrats can't create that right for themselves.

That's fine, but has little to do with the facts of this case as it is. You're not telling me what you 'want', you're just saying you're unhappy with this. It's like a guy driving down the street: one day he complains about potholes and asks if anyone is ever going to bother to fix this, the next day, while waiting in traffic for construction crews fixing the potholes, he complains about said traffic.

Click to expand...

It's not about what I want, or really, about representative government, or even abut the U.S. Constitution and the country's laws. Governments that don't live up to what is expected of them and lose the respect of those they govern also lose their authority, and eventually, all the power that entails. In the case of Prohibition, the government was virtually powerless to enforce an effective ban no matter how many resources it devoted to this task.


The same holds of unsanctioned intrusions into American privacy.

I think he's a hero for exposing the Government spying on every American citizen....I think he's a traitor for exposing the Governemt for hacking into Chinese computers and other things we are doing to OTHER countries.

The gov or NSA gathering info on us should be decided openly, not hidden from us.

DaveFagan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Snowden has admitted his trustless behavior (has admitted he broke his oath of loyalty). Not so sure NSA leaders have. They certainly haven't admitted to same.

grip said:

The gov or NSA gathering info on us should be decided openly, not hidden from us.

Click to expand...

And from terrorists?

BTW, we can easily infer from the the Obama administration that the war on terror isn't over. Why is the BO adminstration fighting the war on terror amongst the american people (NSA spying programs on americans/potential american terrorists) instead of with american soldiers in the middle east when results of fighting with soldiers on terrorism are better and quicker? Answerolitics. In other words, it's more important for the BO administration to bring the troops home from the middle east than to manage the war on terror.

ModerateGOP said:

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.

Click to expand...

snowden is neither a hero nor a traitor.

He's just no big deal. The information about the NSA's data mining that he supposedly "leaked" is old news to anyone who has perused international news (i. e. something other than fauxnews) in the last few years.

I suspect he's probably a depressed man who was unhappy w/his life in Hawaii, was sick of being used as a tool by the feds, and wanted to leave and tell his pathetic employer to !@#$ off.

His actions in no way damage US nat'l security.