• 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 Asylum To Be Offered By Venezuela,President Nicolás Maduro Says[W:271]

I don't believe in doing things to hurt the US but recording everyone's phone calls, emails, text messages and other forms of communications is simply too much information. It gives the government way too much ability to abuse their power thru secret courts and under the guise of national security.

and what if snowden releases information that potentially endangers the lives of americans involved in secret and covert operations? has he relinquished all the information he possesses? if he is holding onto that information, that would mean he would be a valuable aqusition for any country that has a grudge against us and would benefit from knowing our secret programs?
 
Yes, they do. Only an ignorant fool would not think countries who possess the technology are not spying on each other to every extent possible, and the people who have the secrets which need to be guarded are not ignorant fools.

Well, regardless of how well it was known, it was still considered classified information.

Sounds like a great description.


Realistically we have to protect our interests as a nation but we can't use that as an excuse to be abusive towards citizens and allies. And the potential for that is very high with today's technology. Look at the IRS scandal and News Media intimidation, showing the gov needs checks and balances, especially for average citizens.
 
Obviously not everyone agrees with me. If you don't like how I state my beliefs, don't read my posts.
You missed the point. The point was you were putting your beliefs as fact, and from that "fact", you were assessing the situation under your beliefs.

I love when people say things like, "Snowden's information about that did not come as a surprise to me or anyone who has been paying attention." Again, you are not a special snowflake.
I never claimed to be, in fact, I know there are plenty of people who knew this information beforehand. The point I'm making is that Snowden did not come out with a "revelation".

The issue here isn't surprise. Nobody except for you has said anything about being surprised.
What exactly do you think "revelation" means?

The issue of "surprise" is the ultimate self-aggrandizing strawman.
It wasn't my word, and you argued with me when I argued it with the person who used the word. *shrug*

As for the rest of your post, knowing about other programs and believing that programs like PRISM and the Verizon program existed is, again, not the same thing as knowing that PRISM and the Verizon program existed.
:lol:

Yes and knowing that baby sparrows exist and believing that baby hummingbirds exist is not the same that as knowing that baby hummingbirds exist. After all, I've never seen one. :roll:

You didn't know.
Sure we did. We may not have known the names, but we knew what was going on. We knew the government took data from cell phone carriers. We knew the government was collecting data on Americans, was constantly requesting more data on Americans. Of course we knew that.

You ought to be more accurate and precise with your language
You ought to quit playing word games when it's apparent you were one of the ones who didn't know. Just because you didn't know didn't mean others didn't. The fact you think I'm a special snowflake because I did know says quite a bit about what you didn't know.
Really?

Under which situation is he more able to continue to talk about what he knows, to any extent he wants...a) free; or b) in captivity?
Yes, and what exactly required him to not reveal everything he knew all at one time? :lol:

Snowden could have just told everything he knew all at once. But he didn't, he wanted to drag it out for maximum affect, and likely, for his own personal glory.
I agree that snowden is a coward, but not for the reasons you offer. He's a coward because in choosing to work for the NSA in the first place, he broke his own principles . And he did it for $$.
I wouldn't say that. If he suspected the wrongdoings, working for the NSA granted him the ability to confirm his suspicions. It would be considered an investigation.

The act of revealing the spying operation, however, was honorable
While I disagree with your word "reveal", I do NOT disagree it was the honorable thing to do to take it public. But what was not honorable was running away from it.

Realistically we have to protect our interests as a nation but we can't use that as an excuse to be abusive towards citizens and allies.
It's the battle of security vs. privacy, and I don't know if those two sides can ever work together.
 
but exactly how much information and government secrets does snowden possess. has he given away all knews or are there some government secrets he has not revealed yet and has stored on a personal hard drive. will he reveal it for free or will require payment for the information?

AS part of his atonement for his sins (i. e. working for the NSA), Snowden has an obligation to freely tell all that he knows about corruption within the US gummint that he uncovered as an NSA spy.
 
and what if snowden releases information that potentially endangers the lives of americans involved in secret and covert operations? has he relinquished all the information he possesses? if he is holding onto that information, that would mean he would be a valuable aqusition for any country that has a grudge against us and would benefit from knowing our secret programs?

I doubt somehow he knows enough to seriously damage the US spy agencies abilities to use espionage on other nations. We have satellites that can read your opened mail and count your freckles. The gov wouldn't even tell us how much he knows anyway they're so paranoid and secretive. Obama is always preaching transparency to other nations, especially emerging democracies and he's about opaque as a brick wall.
 
You missed the point. The point was you were putting your beliefs as fact, and from that "fact", you were assessing the situation under your beliefs.
No, I didn't miss the point. I stated my beliefs without prefacing them with "I believe" and now you're harping on it. Like I said, if you don't like the way I state my beliefs, don't read my posts.

I never claimed to be, in fact, I know there are plenty of people who knew this information beforehand. The point I'm making is that Snowden did not come out with a "revelation".
The only people who "knew" this info beforehand were the people who were privy to the classified information. You really need to grasp the difference between knowledge and belief.

What exactly do you think "revelation" means?
What, exactly, do you think this question has to do with that fact that nobody but you brought up the issue of surprise?

It wasn't my word, and you argued with me when I argued it with the person who used the word. *shrug*
Great, so you accept that you aren't a special snowflake when it comes to not being surprised. I appreciate that.

Yes and knowing that baby sparrows exist and believing that baby hummingbirds exist is not the same that as knowing that baby hummingbirds exist. After all, I've never seen one.

Sure we did. We may not have known the names, but we knew what was going on. We knew the government took data from cell phone carriers. We knew the government was collecting data on Americans, was constantly requesting more data on Americans. Of course we knew that.

You ought to quit playing word games when it's apparent you were one of the ones who didn't know. Just because you didn't know didn't mean others didn't. The fact you think I'm a special snowflake because I did know says quite a bit about what you didn't know.
Knowing the difference between belief and knowledge is not "word games." It's called being educated. Tell me - what do you think the difference between knowledge and belief is?
 
I doubt somehow he knows enough to seriously damage the US spy agencies abilities to use espionage on other nations. We have satellites that can read your opened mail and count your freckles. The gov wouldn't even tell us how much he knows anyway they're so paranoid and secretive. Obama is always preaching transparency to other nations, especially emerging democracies and he's about opaque as a brick wall.

and has he revealed everything he knows? he could potentially sell his information to other countries who would use our own spying techniques against us.

to be frank snowden kinda reminds me of the exploits of theodore hall, the soviet spy who gave away secrets of the Manhattan project.
 
and has he revealed everything he knows? he could potentially sell his information to other countries who would use our own spying techniques against us.

to be frank snowden kinda reminds me of the exploits of theodore hall, the soviet spy who gave away secrets of the Manhattan project.

He should be charged for any crimes that damage the strategic US interests, not for uncovering illegal activities by gov agencies. If revealing those unethical and overreach activities by the US hurt the gov, then they shouldn't have been doing them.

I don't think the US foreign policy has been worth a tinkers damn anyhow. All we've done is stoke the chords of chaos, distrust and animus.
 
and what if snowden releases information that potentially endangers the lives of americans involved in secret and covert operations? has he relinquished all the information he possesses? if he is holding onto that information, that would mean he would be a valuable aqusition for any country that has a grudge against us

:rolleyes:

If you wanna be taken seriously, please learn the basics. The US gummint and "us" are two different things.
 
Yes, and what exactly required him to not reveal everything he knew all at one time? :lol:
I will take that as a)

Snowden could have just told everything he knew all at once. But he didn't, he wanted to drag it out for maximum affect, and likely, for his own personal glory.

Prove it.

You now claim to know what he feels - then where is your link that proves that you know what he 'wants'?
 
Last edited:
What I find stunning about the Snowden case is how much of a canary in the coal mines it has served with regards to our respect for privacy. We think nothing of entities like Mark Zuckerberg and Google selling our personal information to corporations, and condemn Snowden for alerting us to flagrant violations of our rights by our government. Where the hell are our priorities?

And calling us Snowden a "coward" is laughable. I wonder how many here who label him thus would so willingly sacrifice their home, family and freedom to stand up for their principles.

He won't have to sacrifice home and family. Whatever regime grants him asylum (which will be done in total secrecy) will have no problem letting his GF live with him, and will give him a free house or room.

As for freedom, he certainly won't get that, but then, considering he had no problem working for the NSA in the first place, I doubt he cares much about it.
 
Iceland seems to have fallen through. They were going to have a vote on making him a citizen before they went off for the Summer recess but have surprising voted not to do this.

Snowden has applied secretly to six other countries as he says he wants to stop the US from intimidating them.

And how can he travel if even Presidential planes are illegally searched and European countries will not give airspace to a plane that could be hiding him. Spain has said she was told Snowden was definitely on that plane.

When refueling of the plane of a head of State is refused which could have resulted in an air crash and loss of life, how the hell in this world, bought and sold by the US, is he going to get safe passage anywhere?

Maybe the UN will need to say that by the Geneva Convention he needs political asylum and escort him if need be? :shock:

Your paranoia and hatred of the United States has now reached ludicrous levels. :lamo
 
Not me. I hope he's brought back to the United States and put on trial. Running away and hiding is cowardly. If he feels this strongly about the wrongs the government was doing, then he should be willing to stand up and fight them.

Correct. I don't agree with what he did but if he was going to claim to do it out of principle, then he'd have to have faced the legal consequences. By his defection he has proven that he is not a man of principle.

But really this whole thing is just a side show. He's a criminal spy and should be dealt with accordingly, not really much more to this story than that.
 
You do realize Bradley Manning was a member of the Army, was arrested in a foreign country and is being court martialed, right?

I'm sorry, would Edward Snowden be court martialed? If not, your entire post here is irrelevant.

But he's not fighting. He's running.

Because everything about your statement is false. He wouldn't be locked in a cage and he's not resisting, he's running.

But hey, I'll do the honest thing for you. How would be arrested and standing trial help his cause more than running? Well, he could stand up for what he believes in, it would likely inspire protests from other Americans to stand up for removal of this spying, it would keep the story in the news much longer, it would force politicians to have to take a stand on security vs. privacy (a stand which then would be in play during elections) and at the end of the day, if he could convince a jury of his peers, it would show that Americans do not support the massive spying into their lives.

Happy now?

1) Are you trying to say that only court martials can be blocked from the public media?

2) Manning was locked in a cage (solitary confinement), why wouldn't Snowden? Snitches get stitches, right?

3) You're really crazy enough to believe the US government would allow a trial that concerns a top secret information to be released to the media. Why would they refuse to let the media talk to Manning, but let you give them your memoirs?

You have to voluntarily submit yourself to the will of the government, otherwise you're a coward. What a ****ty philosophy you have.
 
Your paranoia and hatred of the United States has now reached ludicrous levels. :lamo

Nothing to say but inaccurate personal abuse. Why am I not surprised.
 
You have to voluntarily submit yourself to the will of the government, otherwise you're a coward. What a ****ty philosophy you have.

No, Snowden claims to have done what he did to uphold the constitution. If he were a man of principle he would have stayed in the United States and faced the consequences. Instead he defected, so obviously he has no respect for the law of the United States. He is a hypocrite.
 
I will take that as a)
You should take it as C)

You offer a false dichotomy.

Prove it. You now claim to know what he feels - then where is your link that proves that you know what he 'wants'?
I don't have to prove it, it's what I believe his motivation to be. And the reason I believe it to be his motivation is based upon his actions. He could have said everything at once, but he didn't. He strung it out over multiple occasions. He could have easily said everything he wanted to say, and then face the legal charges against him.

Correct. I don't agree with what he did but if he was going to claim to do it out of principle, then he'd have to have faced the legal consequences. By his defection he has proven that he is not a man of principle.
Exactly. I don't know that I'd say I don't agree with what he did, quite honestly I'm conflicted on it, but you are 100% right about his fleeing.
1) Are you trying to say that only court martials can be blocked from the public media?
I'm saying Manning and Snowden are different circumstances, which would play out differently due to those circumstances.

3) You're really crazy enough to believe the US government would allow a trial that concerns a top secret information to be released to the media.
Snowden already released the information he had to the media, information which was classified. What exactly is left, which would be relevant to the charges?

You have to voluntarily submit yourself to the will of the government, otherwise you're a coward. What a ****ty philosophy you have.
And what terrible reading comprehension you seem to possess. Clearly you are a traitor to this country, obviously planning a rebellion against the government.

Or, maybe, we can stop irrational extremism in discourse and just discuss this logically. Your hyperbole does nothing but discredit you.
 
No, Snowden claims to have done what he did to uphold the constitution. If he were a man of principle he would have stayed in the United States and faced the consequences. Instead he defected, so obviously he has no respect for the law of the United States. He is a hypocrite.

Nah.

Its WAY easier to defend your actions before the world out in it than locked away from it forever.

Pisses off your opponent no end too.

Win win.
 
You should take it as C)

You offer a false dichotomy.
So you cannot answer this incredibly simple question:

Under which situation is he more able to continue to talk about what he knows, to any extent he wants...a) free; or b) in captivity?

Noted.


I don't have to prove it, it's what I believe his motivation to be. And the reason I believe it to be his motivation is based upon his actions. He could have said everything at once, but he didn't. He strung it out over multiple occasions. He could have easily said everything he wanted to say, and then face the legal charges against him.

You said he 'wants', not 'I believe he wants'.

You made a matter-of-fact statement, when all you had was that you 'believed'.

So, you make factual/matter-of-fact statements knowing you do not actually know the facts.

Again noted.



Have a nice day.
 
Nah.

Its WAY easier to defend your actions before the world out in it than locked away from it forever.

Pisses off your opponent no end too.

Win win.

Well, that's the point. He claims not to be an opponent of the United States. He claims to have leaked the data out of love of country. But he defected to escape the legal consequences of his actions.

If he really respected rule of law, as he claims, he would stay here and defend his actions in court.
 
So you cannot answer this incredibly simple question:

Under which situation is he more able to continue to talk about what he knows, to any extent he wants...a) free; or b) in captivity?

Noted.
No, I'm accurately pointing out your fallacious argument. You're engaging in bifurcation, or more commonly known as false dilemma/dichotomy. You're saying only two possibilities exist, when the fact is more than one alternative exists.

I already answered your question by noting one of those alternatives. Just because it didn't fit within your fallacious argument doesn't mean I cannot answer it. It just means I'm not playing along with your fallacious argument.

You said he 'wants', not 'I believe he wants'.

You made a matter-of-fact statement, when all you had was that you 'believed'.

So, you make factual/matter-of-fact statements knowing you do not actually know the facts.
What I said was:

"Snowden could have just told everything he knew all at once. But he didn't, he wanted to drag it out for maximum affect [sic], and likely, for his own personal glory."

First of all, I hate the fact I used the wrong form of effect. Second of all, I notice you cannot dispute what I said. Snowden could have said everything all at once, but he didn't. So allow me to rephrase the second part of that:

"Snowden could have just told everything he knew all at once. But he didn't, because he almost assuredly wanted to drag it out for maximum effect, and likely, for his own personal glory."

Does that please you more? Are people always so anal retentive about irrelevant word play?
 
Apparently some members of the Russian parliament are in favor of Snowden going to Venezuela, however, the Kremiln has kept silent about the matter.

MOSCOW — Venezuela’s offer of asylum for NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden got a thumbs up from key members of the Russian parliament Saturday, even as the Kremlin and Foreign Ministry kept a studious silence.

“Sanctuary for Snowden in Venezuela would be the best decision,” Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign affairs committee of Russia’s lower house of parliament, tweeted Saturday.
Russians signal openness to Venezuela’s offer to shelter Snowden - The Washington Post
 
What I said was:

"Snowden could have just told everything he knew all at once. But he didn't, he wanted to drag it out for maximum affect [sic], and likely, for his own personal glory."

First of all, I hate the fact I used the wrong form of effect. Second of all, I notice you cannot dispute what I said. Snowden could have said everything all at once, but he didn't. So allow me to rephrase the second part of that:

"Snowden could have just told everything he knew all at once. But he didn't, because he almost assuredly wanted to drag it out for maximum effect, and likely, for his own personal glory."

Does that please you more? Are people always so anal retentive about irrelevant word play?

You are not much for exactitude, are you?


First, you typed 'I notice you cannot dispute what I said.'

Of course I can if I wish - all I have to do is to start typing. How effective it is would have to be seen - but I certainly can dispute it.

Unless you believe I am physically unable to type on my computer - then there is no way you can know that I 'cannot dispute what I (you) said'.


Second, if I was Snowden, I would certainly not say everything I knew - then my value would drop to zip. What country that hates America (like Venezuela - who offered him asylum) wants a spy with nothing to say?

If you don't believe that - I don't really care.


Third, your rephrase is better - but it still is wanting.

'Almost assuredly'?

'as·sured (-shrd)
adj.
1. Made certain; guaranteed'

assuredly - definition of assuredly by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


The only way you could 'almost guarantee' what his wants are is if he specifically said what they are regarding that subject.

Since he did not - to my knowledge - then there is no way you have ANY IDEA what he does or does not want on this particular subject.


The bottom line is that you have NO CLUE what Edward Snowden wants about anything he has not spoken of.

You can believe, hope or even prey that you do - but you CANNOT know.
 
Back
Top Bottom