• 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

Collecting data on folks suspected of criminal or terrorist activity is one thing.

Collecting data on all Americans whether or not they are suspected of terrorism or crimes? Nope, that goes too far.

Time to change the program so that the only calls that can be monitored include the number of at least one suspected foreign terrorist.
 
Think this is actually good this came to light. 6 months ago, I believed that most within the government bureaucracy could remain apolitical and not allow the information at the their privy to be abused for political purposes. Crazy what a few months can do.

Frankly, not really sure you can hide behind national security on this, there is truly too much data to make much out of it. I'm sure they can get lucky putting in the right algorithm here and there but seems like a pretty big waste of resources for national security purposes. This just highlights our abysmal failure with human intelligence since the end of the Cold War.
 
Sarcogito said:
I have been trying to find an authoritative definition of "whistelblowing" but none that I find say it only applied to illegal activities. For example:

"The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing."
Whistleblowing legal definition of Whistleblowing. Whistleblowing synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Most the definitions say something like "illegality OR wrongdoing".

Wrongdoing is definitely a moral call.

While I don’t consider Manning a whistleblower since he didn’t even know what he was leaking, I DO consider this man a whistleblower. He made a conscientious decision to leak information on a specific program that he felt was morally wrong. Now, the information was classified so he definitely broke the law, but it is still whistleblowing.
Click to expand...

Did he release any information? Or did he blow the whistle on an operation that violated the civil rights of millions of Americans?
 
MaggieD said:
Whistle-blowing is revealing illegal acts. It's not about revealing top-secret information.
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me. You don't consider being spied on, or that of hundreds of millions of people illegal and unconstitutional?
 
This guy released classified information on a program that HE believed to be unConstitutional.

He is a whistleblower. Let's not debate such a clear issue.
 
MaggieD said:
Whistle-blowing is revealing illegal acts. It's not about revealing top-secret information.
Click to expand...

He and many others believe the government operation is unConstitutional.

That makes him a whistleblower.
 
Jango said:
You've got to be kidding me. You don't consider being spied on, or that of hundreds of millions of people illegal and unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Unlike you, apparently, I'm not sure what powers the Patriot Act gave the government....*shrug*
 
MaggieD said:
Unlike you, apparently, I'm not sure what powers the Patriot Act gave the government....*shrug*
Click to expand...

The PATRIOT Act says nothing specific about mass surveillance of all international cellphone calls.

Even if it did, it probably violates the 4th Amendment.
 
Kanstantine said:
The PATRIOT Act says nothing specific about mass surveillance of all international cellphone calls.

Even if it did, it probably violates the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Then who is being prosecuted?
 
MaggieD said:
Then who is being prosecuted?
Click to expand...

No one yet.

Nevermind that not all Constitutional violations bring about criminal charges. Often times laws are simply stricken or changed and programs are modified.
 
Kanstantine said:
No one yet.

Nevermind that not all Constitutional violations bring about criminal charges. Often times laws are simply stricken or changed and programs are modified.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you have a point. I agree with that. Whether that keeps him out of jail is another thing.
 
Kanstantine said:
The PATRIOT Act says nothing specific about mass surveillance of all international cellphone calls.

Even if it did, it probably violates the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Except we have been doing this under the guise of the PATRIOT ACT for year and years now and FISA.
"The Times, over the objections of the Bush Administration, reveals that since 2002 the government “monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants.” The program involves actually listening in on phone calls and reading emails without seeking permission from the FISA Court.

The mass data collection reported by the Guardian this week apparently was first authorized by the FISA court in 2006, though exactly when is not clear. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, said Thursday, “As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years.” Similarly, the Washington Post quoted an anonymous “expert in this aspect of the law” who said the document published by the Guardian appears to be a “routine renewal” of an order first issued in 2006.

Congress follows up the Protect America Act with another law, the FISA Amendments Act, extending the government’s expanded spying powers for another four years. The law now approaches the kind of warrantless wiretapping that occurred earlier in Bush administration. Senator Obama votes for the act."
A Timeline of Mass Surveillance in America
 
Surtr said:
He goes to jail anyway. Revealing national secrets to the public is treason, regardless of his beliefs. He'll be lucky if he gets anything under 25-30 years in prison. Both he and Manning should be executed to make an example for others to think about before they develop delusions of heroism.
Click to expand...

OldWorldOrder said:
The guy just shared some top secret information cause he disagreed with it. Not sure that's heroic. If anything, it's bad.
Click to expand...

Captain America said:
Let us hope.
Click to expand...

Three clear cut examples of why this country is heading for nothing but darker days. Shame on the three of you, and any one else that condones and agrees with them. ****ing ridiculous is what it is.
 
apdst said:
Did he release any information? Or did he blow the whistle on an operation that violated the civil rights of millions of Americans?
Click to expand...

This is just my speculation, I could be completely wrong. I am guessing existence of the program was very likely classified. My guess is it was TOP SECRET, which is higher than anything Manning released. Also, it was probably a “special” program which means he would have had to have been specifically read on for that specific program.

So simply divulging that the program exists, even if many in the public assumed as much anyway, was illegal. I do, however, believe his act was moral.
 
If this happened under Bush the faux-Patriots would rally around the program and condemn all who are against it as "terrorist lovers".

But because this has been revealed under Obama it will most likely be scaled back bigtime. No one will be accused of "treason" for being angry at this program.
 
StringBean said:
No one will get killed by letting the public know their entire lives are being tracked by the government.
Click to expand...

Oh. So it is your theory that terrorists do not use (for example) Yahoo email accounts? How interesting - how did you come to that conclusion?

If you believe it is wrong for the American people to know that their privacy has been violated, then I question whether you understand the principles of this nation.
Click to expand...

Well it's an interesting question. If this constitutes a 4th Amendment violation, then he could legitimately have refused orders (well, he was a private contractor, he was free to quit anyway)... but there are also better venues for this than violating your nondisclosure agreement and putting our cyber collection capabilities at risk.
 
Sarcogito said:
This is just my speculation, I could be completely wrong. I am guessing existence of the program was very likely classified. My guess is it was TOP SECRET,
Click to expand...

The banner of the slide on Drudge Report was TS/SI/ORCON/NOFORN. So... yeah.

which is higher than anything Manning released. Also, it was probably a “special” program which means he would have had to have been specifically read on for that specific program.

So simply divulging that the program exists, even if many in the public assumed as much anyway, was illegal. I do, however, believe his act was moral.
Click to expand...

He may have had understandable or honorable intentions. That doesn't make the act itself right.
 
Jango said:
Three clear cut examples of why this country is heading for nothing but darker days. Shame on the three of you, and any one else that condones and agrees with them. ****ing ridiculous is what it is.
Click to expand...

You don't have to like it - but this program had all three branches of government input to it, meaning that it had passed the bar for legality. I understand if you disagree with Snowden's logic that it shouldn't be, but that does not put you in the position of being able to call down shame or anything else on those who point that out to you. It is not Snowden's right to overturn our system of self-government because he does not like the conclusion it has come to.
 
cpwill said:
You don't have to like it - but this program had all three branches of government input to it, meaning that it had passed the bar for legality. I understand if you disagree with Snowden's logic that it shouldn't be, but that does not put you in the position of being able to call down shame or anything else on those who point that out to you. It is not Snowden's right to overturn our system of self-government because he does not like the conclusion it has come to.
Click to expand...

And that is supposed to be comforting? I mean, how many people across the three branches did it take to ram the Affordable Care Act through our system of government? Simply because it is on the books as law does not make it Constitutional. The same goes with torture. They made that legal too. Simply put, if they want to, they can make just about anything legal. Doesn't mean it is right, just or Constitutional, and I think everyone knows that that frequents this message board. And I think condoning the overreach of government is just as wrong as the government overreaching.
 
cpwill said:
The banner of the slide on Drudge Report was TS/SI/ORCON/NOFORN. So... yeah.
Click to expand...

Not surprising. I doubt NSA deals with much below TS.







He may have had understandable or honorable intentions. That doesn't make the act itself right.
 
Jango said:
And that is supposed to be comforting?
Click to expand...

:shrug: yes. Government is force, it is coercion, it is the use of the threat of violence against your neighbor to force him (and you) to live together somewhat peaceably. All goverment power is thus subject to the possibility of incredible abuse against the people. Think about it: the government of the US has more and better weapons than anyone else on the planet and you are worried about them intercepting your pizza order?

The way we protect ourselves is through the balance of power, the use of checks and balances, the setting of faction against faction. That is how we keep government from being used to abuse us. Many of us often disagree with the particulars of decisions reached in compromises between those factions, and so we have regular elections to allow ourselves to change the mix.

I mean, how many people across the three branches did it take to ram the Affordable Care Act through our system of government?
Click to expand...

Enough - and then in 2012 enough people voted to keep it there, too. I don't like it - in fact I think it's insane. But it is the law, and I don't get to overturn an election simply because it upsets me.
 
Sarcogito said:
Not surprising. I doubt NSA deals with much below TS.
Click to expand...

Well, any SI caveat is usually enough to mandate storage above the stringency of SIPR (in case you are worried, I am actually sitting here with a textbook next to me making sure that that is unclass).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom