• 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 - Jail, or a Parade?

Jail or a Parade

  • Total voters
    59
Early on I wasn't sure what to think about this whole affair ... but the more I read the more uncomfortable with PRISM and all the prism-ish programs out there.
Government claims turned out were very possibly not true.
Like ...
  • Terrorist plots wre foiled because of it ... looks like that was false.
  • Congress was apprised of everything ... uh uh.
  • The data could never be misused ... oh please ... e.g. IRS.
  • Obama only did what W Bush did and what Congress intended over a decade ago.
 
Kanstantine said:
Assassinating Hitler would have also been an illegal act.
Click to expand...

Violation of the Executive Order against Assassination - Illegal for members of the Executive Branch without Presidential approval.
 
cpwill said:
That is incorrect - it is not Snowden's purview to seek to overturn the combined judgement of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches as to what is and is not legal under the Constitution.



Yup.
Click to expand...

And a jury would agree with that reasoning?
 
bubbabgone said:
Early on I wasn't sure what to think about this whole affair ... but the more I read the more uncomfortable with PRISM and all the prism-ish programs out there.
Government claims turned out were very possibly not true.
Like ...
  • Terrorist plots wre foiled because of it ... looks like that was false.
  • Congress was apprised of everything ... uh uh.
  • The data could never be misused ... oh please ... e.g. IRS.
  • Obama only did what W Bush did and what Congress intended over a decade ago.
Click to expand...
The pattern of abuse is unmistakable. The data mining appears to be legal, i.e., it's legal until it is declared illegal. I do wonder if it would cease should it be declared illegal. I also wonder if Congress is up to the task of answering the public on the issue. Lindsay the Grahamcracker and a handful of GOP bullwonkers seem to think it's just fine. What a bunch of morooons.
 
humbolt said:
The pattern of abuse is unmistakable.
Click to expand...
The data mining appears to be legal, i.e., it's legal until it is declared illegal. I do wonder if it would cease should it be declared illegal. I also wonder if Congress is up to the task of answering the public on the issue. Lindsay the Grahamcracker and a handful of GOP bullwonkers seem to think it's just fine. What a bunch of morooons.
Click to expand...

That's the thing ... the pattern ... so what talking points do we hear now meant to discourage any talk of a pattern?
"Don't conflate something like the IRS scandal with the NRA programs."
That doesn't help their credibility.
 
Far fetched? Think so? Could never happen?

obama - prism.jpg
 
bubbabgone said:
That's the thing ... the pattern ... so what talking points do we hear now meant to discourage any talk of a pattern?
"Don't conflate something like the IRS scandal with the NRA programs."
That doesn't help their credibility.
Click to expand...
It surely doesn't. I can well see that the majority of those not politically involved might yawn at the IRS thing. When you start messing with their Facebook pages, though...
 
I would like to have seen 'parade' replaced with 'praise'...but I voted for the former anyway.

But I do think - based on what I know of all this - that he is a hero.
 
cpwill said:
That is not what I said. But he broke the law. I happen to believe that the Rule of Law is important.
Click to expand...

An individual "breaking the law" to expose something on the size and scope of what our government is/was doing surely must be excusable shouldn't it?


The kind of thing you suggest is like the insanity of the zero tolerance laws where a kid gets disciplined for a pop tart eaten into the shape of a gun.


If the country/government is breaking a law, or violating the constitution, then isn't it the DUTY of an individual who discovers that violation to expose it for what it is?

Or to put it another way - isn't it a worse violation of your country to not expose something of this nature if you know it's going on?
 
cpwill said:
That is not what I said. But he broke the law. I happen to believe that the Rule of Law is important.
Click to expand...

Whereas I happen to think that Freedom and Liberty of the People is important and that to keep a properly restrained government requires an educated populace, including knowledge of government activity.
 
Middleground said:
So what if Snowden was more selective? They both made public top secret information, and, as employees of the state, had an oath of confidentiality, no?
Click to expand...

I look at it that if your bosses are behaving unethically and/or immorally your responsibility to your employers i.e. the general public, overrules any oath of confidentiality or official secrets laws.
 
Andalublue said:
I look at it that if your bosses are behaving unethically and/or immorally your responsibility to your employers i.e. the general public, overrules any oath of confidentiality or official secrets laws.
Click to expand...

I get that. But what I'm not getting is why this is considered new news. It's been common knowledge for some time now that domestic spying is alive and well in the US.
 
cpwill said:
Incorrect - the divulgance of classified material is and remains a criminal act, regardless of what you think of the legality of the collection platform or activity divulged. The one has precisely zero bearing on the legality of the other.
Click to expand...

The question is: Can you forgive the "crime" based on what the crime has potentially exposed?

If I have to break the speed limit in order to prevent a child from getting run over by a train, would you suggest a speeding ticket HAVE to be issued?
 
Middleground said:
I get that. But what I'm not getting is why this is considered new news. It's been common knowledge for some time now that domestic spying is alive and well in the US.
Click to expand...
You're being intentionally obtuse. It's considered "new news" because before several days ago the public did not know about these specific programs and their scope.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You're being intentionally obtuse. It's considered "new news" because before several days ago the public did not know about these specific programs and their scope.
Click to expand...

So what value (over what was previously known) does this new found knowledge about specific spying programs add?
 
Middleground said:
So what value (over what was previously known) does this new found knowledge about specific spying programs add?
Click to expand...
Hard knowledge is always better than speculation - it's always better to know exactly what the government is doing than to just have some vague idea. Moreover, there is now solid information that can be used to challenge the constitutionality of such surveillance and the laws that allow it in court.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Hard knowledge is always better than speculation - it's always better to know exactly what the government is doing than to just have some vague idea. Moreover, there is now solid information that can be used to challenge the constitutionality of such surveillance and the laws that allow it in court.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

I just found this article:

Speaking with Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace about what President Obama has done with surveillance programs inherited from the Bush administration, Michael Hayden, former director of both the NSA and CIA answered:

In terms of surveillance? Expanded [the programs] in volume, changed the legal grounding for them a little bit. [...]

We’ve gotten more of these records over time. With the amendment to the FISA Act, in 2008, which Senator Obama finally voted for, NSA is actually empowered to do more things than I was empowered to do under President Bush’s special authorization.
Click to expand...

Bush-Era Spying 'Made Legal' Under Obama | Common Dreams

I can't say I find it hardly surprising. Give a government an inch and they'll take a mile.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
It's a shame, especially for Obama. He had a chance to be much more than he's turned out to be. He really squandered an opportunity.
Click to expand...
Or, because he started receiving daily briefings showing how horrible the world really is, he changed his notion of what needed to be done to protect the homeland?
 
I think Obama did what all candidates do when running for office, say what people want to hear to get elected, then do what it takes in their estimation to effectively run the gov in the real world. I'm not saying they always make the right decisions when they get in but when they promise the moon and the stars who's being naive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom