• 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: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

This guy is no whistle blower....He is a traitor....Whistle blowers don't go hide in China, Russia, Cuba...etc...Traitors do.

They do when they are facing 20 years to life in a Federal penitentiary! What? You think public opinion would save him if he had stayed in the U.S.A. and "proudly" gone to trial in a Federal court? Not hardly. The Federal government has a history of cracking down hard on such activities to set an example preventing similar future acts.

The law is clear and he broke it. The best he could hope for would be jury nullification in his particular case, and that is a fairly iffy proposition. As for fleeing to places with either no extradition treaty or a history of bucking the U.S.A. when it comes to harboring fugitives, did you expect him to go somewhere that would have shipped him back as soon as the Feds demanded him?

The fact the he was smart enough to leave American jurisdiction before blowing his whistle does not make him any less a hero, it just makes him an intelligent one.
 
They do when they are facing 20 years to life in a Federal penitentiary! What? You think public opinion would save him if he had stayed in the U.S.A. and "proudly" gone to trial in a Federal court? Not hardly. The Federal government has a history of cracking down hard on such activities to set an example preventing similar future acts.

The law is clear and he broke it. The best he could hope for would be jury nullification in his particular case, and that is a fairly iffy proposition. As for fleeing to places with either no extradition treaty or a history of bucking the U.S.A. when it comes to harboring fugitives, did you expect him to go somewhere that would have shipped him back as soon as the Feds demanded him?

The fact the he was smart enough to leave American jurisdiction before blowing his whistle does not make him any less a hero, it just makes him an intelligent one.

I agree completely.
 
They do when they are facing 20 years to life in a Federal penitentiary! What? You think public opinion would save him if he had stayed in the U.S.A. and "proudly" gone to trial in a Federal court? Not hardly. The Federal government has a history of cracking down hard on such activities to set an example preventing similar future acts.

The law is clear and he broke it. The best he could hope for would be jury nullification in his particular case, and that is a fairly iffy proposition. As for fleeing to places with either no extradition treaty or a history of bucking the U.S.A. when it comes to harboring fugitives, did you expect him to go somewhere that would have shipped him back as soon as the Feds demanded him?

The fact the he was smart enough to leave American jurisdiction before blowing his whistle does not make him any less a hero, it just makes him an intelligent one.

Right you are!

And the contrasting case is that of Thomas Drake and a few other former NSA types. They "kept it in the chain of command", trying to do the right thing, and were promptly indicted.

Keeping it in the chain of command sounds nice to somebody who doesn't know how it works, but it does nothing but bring you more trouble, just like the female military types who try to use the chain of command to report their sexual assaults.

Snowden did the right thing, for himself and for his country.
 
To whom am I 'giving a pass'?

Snowden?

Is he a hero? Is what he's doing heroic?

(Here's your chance to totally make wrong, but it's gonna take you damning Snowden. Which is more important?)
 
They do when they are facing 20 years to life in a Federal penitentiary! What? You think public opinion would save him if he had stayed in the U.S.A. and "proudly" gone to trial in a Federal court? Not hardly. The Federal government has a history of cracking down hard on such activities to set an example preventing similar future acts.

The law is clear and he broke it. The best he could hope for would be jury nullification in his particular case, and that is a fairly iffy proposition. As for fleeing to places with either no extradition treaty or a history of bucking the U.S.A. when it comes to harboring fugitives, did you expect him to go somewhere that would have shipped him back as soon as the Feds demanded him?

The fact the he was smart enough to leave American jurisdiction before blowing his whistle does not make him any less a hero, it just makes him an intelligent one.

That would all make sense were Ellsburg in jail. He's not. So you're wrong.
 
That would all make sense were Ellsburg in jail. He's not. So you're wrong.

You might have been right if Ellsburg hadn't been lucky that a President like Nixon was in office.

After revealing the "Pentagon Papers" Ellsburg and "co-conspirator" Anthony Russo were eventually brought to trial in Los Angeles on January 3, 1973 facing charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Their trial was presided over by U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr.

Prior to this, in 1971, John Erlichman, white house counsel and presidential advisor on Domestic Affairs, authorized G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt (the same Plumbers Group responsible for Watergate) to conduct covert operations geared toward discrediting Ellsburg. On September 3, 1971, the plumbers burglarized the offices of Lewis Fielding where Ellsburgs psychiatric records were allegedly maintained, but didn't find them. They then planned to burglarize Fielding's home, but Erlichman nixed the idea.

Then the Watergate investigation started in 1972, which uncovered numerous documents and tapes, among them Ehrlichman's notes, which labeled this Fielding break-in "Hunt/Liddy Special Project No. 1." On April 26, 1973 Judge Byrne was provided a memo about the Fielding break-in, and later on May 9, 1973 further evidence of FBI wire-tapping against Ellsburg without a court order was provided to the Judge.

Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."

Basically, Ellsburg got very very lucky due to a Presidential scandal which forced a very foolish President and most of his staff out of office.

That's the difference, and if I were Snowden I wouldn't hope for that lucky a set of circumstances to aid me in court either.
 
You might have been right if Ellsburg hadn't been lucky that a President like Nixon was in office.

After revealing the "Pentagon Papers" Ellsburg and "co-conspirator" Anthony Russo were eventually brought to trial in Los Angeles on January 3, 1973 facing charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 and other charges including theft and conspiracy, carrying a total maximum sentence of 115 years. Their trial was presided over by U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr.

Prior to this, in 1971, John Erlichman, white house counsel and presidential advisor on Domestic Affairs, authorized G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt (the same Plumbers Group responsible for Watergate) to conduct covert operations geared toward discreciting Ellsburg. On September 3, 1971, the plumbers burglarized the offices of Lewis Fielding where Ellsburgs psychiatric records were allegedly maintained, but didn't find them. They then planned to burglarize Fielding's home, but Erlichman nixed the idea.

Then the Watergate investigation started in 1972, which uncovered numerous documents and tapes, among them Ehrlichman's notes, which labeled this Fielding break-in "Hunt/Liddy Special Project No. 1." On April 26, 1973 Judge Byrne was provided a memo about the Fielding break-in, and later on May 9, 1973 further evidence of FBI wire-tapping against Ellsburg without a court order was provided to the Judge.

Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."

Basically, Ellsburg got very very lucky due to a Presidential scandal which forced a very foolish President and most of his staff out of office.

That's the difference, and if I were Snowden I wouldn't hope for that lucky a set of circumstances to aid me in court either.

Ah, so Ellsberg got lucky and Snowden would not have been so lucky. I see. Because cases haven't been retried with larger issues?
 
Ah, so Ellsberg got lucky and Snowden would not have been so lucky. I see. Because cases haven't been retried with larger issues?

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but my point was that had Watergate not been discovered, and the evidence of government misconduct regarding Ellsburg not been available, he would have been found guilty and sentenced to up to 115 years in Federal prison.

In his case luck prevailed. In Snowden's? Not so likely.
 
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but my point was that had Watergate not been discovered, and the evidence of government misconduct regarding Ellsburg not been available, he would have been found guilty and sentenced to up to 115 years in Federal prison.

In his case luck prevailed. In Snowden's? Not so likely.

My point is that the court was lenient (to an extreme) on Ellsberg because his became a cause celebre. There's no reason to think why Snowden's wouldn't have been, either. Considering the 50/50 split on the feelings of the unwashed masses, it seems downright likely.
 
My point is that the court was lenient (to an extreme) on Ellsberg because his became a cause celebre. There's no reason to think why Snowden's wouldn't have been, either. Considering the 50/50 split on the feelings of the unwashed masses, it seems downright likely.

Ah, I see. It appears you seem to think that such levels of supportive public opinion would probably result in jury nullification if Snowden's case were brought to trial. Although anything is possible, it it not very probable. That is because juries are subject to court instructions, which are regularly handed out by judges during trial, and this is especially true in Federal courts.

Before sending the jury off to deliberate the judge will provide instructions on what they are required to do under the law. Such instructions usually include statements like "You MUST find the defendant guilty if..." This has typically served to dissuade rebellious jurors from voting their "conscience" by compelling them to examine the facts and determined a verdict required by the law.

As I said, anything is possible, but if I were Snowden I would not put bank on it.
 
Ah, I see. It appears you seem to think that such levels of supportive public opinion would probably result in jury nullification if Snowden's case were brought to trial. Although anything is possible, it it not very probable. That is because juries are subject to court instructions, which are regularly handed out by judges during trial, and this is especially true in Federal courts.

It's...happened before? William Daugherty went through an extensive list in his book Executive Secrets. There have been multiple opportunities for the US government to legally act and it has chosen not to, in light of popular opinion. They did this because they felt that, no matter how strong their case, the public wouldn't stand for a conviction. I don't see any evidence that this would be any different, but because Snowden had already fled, it was easy to put out the warrant for two reasons.

#1- He probably isn't going to be caught any time soon, if ever.
#2- His very act of fleeing disintegrated at least a little of his support.

Before sending the jury off to deliberate the judge will provide instructions on what they are required to do under the law. Such instructions usually include statements like "You MUST find the defendant guilty if..." This has typically served to dissuade rebellious jurors from voting their "conscience" by compelling them to examine the facts and determined a verdict required by the law.

As I said, anything is possible, but if I were Snowden I would not put bank on it.

Typically, but in the most charged of cases, it's often been wrong. The Jim Crow South would provide the best examples.
 
It's...happened before? William Daugherty went through an extensive list in his book Executive Secrets. There have been multiple opportunities for the US government to legally act and it has chosen not to, in light of popular opinion. They did this because they felt that, no matter how strong their case, the public wouldn't stand for a conviction. I don't see any evidence that this would be any different, but because Snowden had already fled, it was easy to put out the warrant for two reasons.

#1- He probably isn't going to be caught any time soon, if ever.
#2- His very act of fleeing disintegrated at least a little of his support.

I appreciate your sympathies, but having represented criminal defendants in court I understand a little more of the REALITIES facing defendants in courts of law. Stay or flee, popular support or not, the Feds goal is to nip future acts of whistleblowing of government secrets in the bud.

Consider President Obama's hard-line stand, and he is a confirmed "liberal" for crissake! Couple that with all the support from so-called Congressional leaders for both surveillance and punishment of government whistelblowers and you have a honest attempt to get this guy in court and throw the book at him. They are honestly trying to find him, get him extradited, and convicted as fast as possible. Had he remained instead of fleeing, he'd be in court right now and within a year sitting in a Federal prison for at least 20 years.

Sorry, but that's just reality.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your sympathies, but having represented criminal defendants in court I understand a little more of the REALITIES facing defendants in courts of law. Stay or flee, popular support or not, the Feds goal is to nip future acts of whistleblowing of government secrets in the bud.

Consider President Obama's hard-line stand, and he is a confirmed "liberal" for crissake! Couple that with all the support from so-called Congressional leaders for both surveillance and punishment of government whistelblowers and you have a honest attempt to get this guy in court and throw the book at him. They are honestly trying to find him, get him extradited, and convicted as fast as possible. Had he remained instead of fleeing, he'd be in court right now and within a year sitting in a Federal prison for at least 20 years.

Sorry, but that's just reality.

I mean, obviously it'd be great to have him in prison for a very long time, but the fact of the matter is unless you've represented defendants with worldwide fame, it doesn't really apply to this situation. Likewise, we understand that pressure can circumvent the law in things like Jim Crow, so...

I'm not making it up. The representatives of the New York Times, regarding the Jeffrey Sterling case, in the early 2000s should've been on trial related to the Espionage Act of 1917, but the government decided not to press charges. Not because the case wasn't sound, but because of popular opinion. It happens.

Of course, we'd all like to think that wouldn't have been the case with Snowden, but reality must encroach: it probably would've been.
 
What technology? How do you even know that that's the size of the NSA
facility? Why are you so focused on this one in particular?

The NSA seems proud enough to make public many aspects of that data center.

Including potential capacity.

It's the focus because it's relevent.
 
The NSA seems proud enough to make public many aspects of that data center.

Including potential capacity.

It's the focus because it's relevent.

Let's assume the NSA is talking about it any more than it's talked about any site:

Why is it relevant? Simply because you don't know anything about the other sites and you focus on it?

I read a hilarious story today in the Washington Post about the Snowden possibly still working for the NSA and doing this all as a means to break the news. Funny stuff, if all the "Snowden is a hero!" guys were still being played.
 
I mean, obviously it'd be great to have him in prison for a very long time, but the fact of the matter is unless you've represented defendants with worldwide fame, it doesn't really apply to this situation. Likewise, we understand that pressure can circumvent the law in things like Jim Crow, so...

I'm not making it up. The representatives of the New York Times, regarding the Jeffrey Sterling case, in the early 2000s should've been on trial related to the Espionage Act of 1917, but the government decided not to press charges. Not because the case wasn't sound, but because of popular opinion. It happens.

Of course, we'd all like to think that wouldn't have been the case with Snowden, but reality must encroach: it probably would've been.

I think you misunderstand my position, I think he IS a hero. I also think he was doing the intelligent thing in leaving the country rather than facing trial for his whistleblowing.

I am a firm advocate of liberty and the protection of civil rights. I have followed closely many of the Federal cases involving terrorists, drugs, and whistleblowers. If I had my way, whistleblowers of government acts violating Constitutional protections like this should be as protected as the laws provide for business whistleblowers. Unfortunately that is not the case.

So please understand, I am simply arguing the reality in support of my position that he was right to flee and not face trial. It does not make him any less a hero in MY eyes.
 
I think you misunderstand my position, I think he IS a hero.

I didn't misunderstand it at all. I was deliberately giving you a rational opposite view, couched in the same language the hero folks have been using.

I also think he was doing the intelligent thing in leaving the country rather than facing trial for his whistleblowing.

As a lawyer, you should know what constitutes being a whistleblower. Not just "Sharing information about something you don't like".

I am a firm advocate of liberty and the protection of civil rights. I have followed closely many of the Federal cases involving terrorists, drugs, and whistleblowers. If I had my way, whistleblowers of government acts violating Constitutional protections like this should be as protected as the laws provide for business whistleblowers. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Do you think lone people working on their own to overrule the rule of law is a good thing? Are they vigilantes? I'm all for breaking laws when need be, but I don't try to veil myself in moral cloth when I do.

So please understand, I am simply arguing the reality in support of my position that he was right to flee and not face trial. It does not make him any less a hero in MY eyes.

That's fine, I'm just saying that history has shown that he would've had a very good chance of beating it. He decided instead to go to a variety of places that don't advocate liberty or the protection of civil rights that you say you so prize. That doesn't cause any hesitation for you? If he was so ideologically driven, you'd think he'd...ya know...be consistent in the application of that beloved ideology, instead of just using it when it suited him and ignoring it for the same reasons. Or do you think Snowden's ideology is that only Americans are deserving of those types of civil liberties he loves? Or maybe he wishes Ecuadoruians, Russians, Cubans, Chinese, etc could have those civil liberties but he needs to start somewhere more feasible and work to those nations...that's cool, I guess, but why not, if he's going to take the procedural route, work within the US government regarding PRISM? I bet we both know the answer to that one, though.

(No, if you're one of those guys that thinks he'd be taken to a 'black site' and killed by the 'CIA', no. I'm talking a realistic reason)
 
My point is that the court was lenient (to an extreme) on Ellsberg because his became a cause celebre. There's no reason to think why Snowden's wouldn't have been, either. Considering the 50/50 split on the feelings of the unwashed masses, it seems downright likely.

...As a lawyer, you should know what constitutes being a whistleblower. Not just "Sharing information about something you don't like".



Do you think lone people working on their own to overrule the rule of law is a good thing? Are they vigilantes? I'm all for breaking laws when need be, but I don't try to veil myself in moral cloth when I do.



That's fine, I'm just saying that history has shown that he would've had a very good chance of beating it. He decided instead to go to a variety of places that don't advocate liberty or the protection of civil rights that you say you so prize. That doesn't cause any hesitation for you? If he was so ideologically driven, you'd think he'd...ya know...be consistent in the application of that beloved ideology, instead of just using it when it suited him and ignoring it for the same reasons. Or do you think Snowden's ideology is that only Americans are deserving of those types of civil liberties he loves? Or maybe he wishes Ecuadoruians, Russians, Cubans, Chinese, etc could have those civil liberties but he needs to start somewhere more feasible and work to those nations...that's cool, I guess, but why not, if he's going to take the procedural route, work within the US government regarding PRISM? I bet we both know the answer to that one, though.

(No, if you're one of those guys that thinks he'd be taken to a 'black site' and killed by the 'CIA', no. I'm talking a realistic reason)

Perhaps you need to re-read a couple of my prior posts: #601 and #607? I don’t know how much clearer I could possibly be.

Furthermore your position confuses me. You seem to advocate “martyrdom” as the only avenue of a “righteous” whistleblower, or that only a group united in righteousness should be allowed to blow whistles about government misconduct.

Personally I am all for transparency in government, however it is presented. In this case a man making public inside information that was not actually “harmful” (unless you buy into the “War on Terror needs every tool in the armory to win” line of B/S) to the workings of our government.

And your point on Ellsburg is complete nonsense. The Court was NOT being “lenient in the extreme,” it was acting on the basis of information regarding government misconduct and illegal wire tapping. Had it not been for Watergate and the evidence from that investigation provided to the judge during Ellsburg’s trial he’d probably be just getting released from prison about now with time off for good behavior.

People believe a lot of erroneous things about our criminal justice system, but the reality is quite different. The only thing I will give you is the long-shot possibility of jury nullification, but if I were his friend (it would be unethical to offer this suggestion as an attorney) I’d be saying “Have a nice life in Iceland, later dude.”
 
Are you familiar with the notion of "figure of speech"? Figuratively speaking?

Why be that hyperbolic

Why bend backwards so far to protect the usage of that word
 
You did take English in school no? I'd like you to pay particular attention to the dictionary's definitions #4, and #7...Which I have bolded for you to follow along easier....You CAN "rape" a piece of paper such as the constitution of the United States. And they are doing exactly that.

Wow you can quote a dictionary way to use something i learned in 1st grade :roll:

Dictionary definitions aren't as important as how society uses words do you even know how language works

But that is what Socialist do. They twist, hide, obfuscate, deflect, and attack freedom.

and conservative political analysis is useless

it sounds like 6 year olds whining about government taking freedoms that they thought they had but never existed

or whining about women getting abortions
 
Wow you can quote a dictionary way to use something i learned in 1st grade :roll:

Dictionary definitions aren't as important as how society uses words do you even know how language works

He apparently knows how punctuation works.
 
He apparently knows how punctuation works.

You are quite capable of understanding whatever I type whether I use punctuation or not

Don't be a moron
 
Spying on the international cellphone calls of Americans without probably cause of criminal or terrorist activity violates the 4th Amendment.

Does this trouble you?

Are you referring to maintaining copies of telco billing records?
 
Is it possible this program has saved lives? Absolutely. And once our technology advances to the point that the NSA actually CAN record and screen the contents of every phone call and email made I am sure even more lives could be saved. But it would still be wrong. Piece by piece by f-ing piece we are ceding our civil liberties in the name of security. Where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? It seems to me that the only thing keeping our government from absolute intrusion is the technology itself. As the technology improves the government WILL encroach more and more. History is proof positive of that.

So when a public servant (ok, a contractor in this case) throws away his career and possibly risks his very freedom to give the People a wakeup call, it doesn’t make him a traitor.

Does carrying hard drives full of sources and methods to Moscow make him a traitor?
 
Back
Top Bottom