• 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!

Is Snowden a patriot?

Is Snowden a patriot?

  • Absolutley! The people have the right to know!

    Votes: 37 56.1%
  • No

    Votes: 19 28.8%
  • NO WAY!

    Votes: 10 15.2%

  • Total voters
    66
They are only lawful because the government defined it as such. They have given no actual proof to the constitutionality of their aggressive force against our rights. Snowden represents the necessary checks on government force and the necessity of the People to be educated towards the concerns of the government and its actions it takes against us.

All three branches of government participated in their duly established constitutional roles. There's no issue.:cool:
 
All three branches of government participated in their duly established constitutional roles. There's no issue.:cool:

There is always issue when the government moves so aggressively as a whole against the rights and liberties of the individual.
 
Ah, but we the people did that.:peace

We the People established the Republic, indeed. With all the restrictions applied through the Constitution, and it is that contract the Government swears to uphold each and every time they take office. And thus breaking that oath is treason towards the People themselves.

It's time you learn the difference between a Republic and a strict democracy.
 
We the People established the Republic, indeed. With all the restrictions applied through the Constitution, and it is that contract the Government swears to uphold each and every time they take office. And thus breaking that oath is treason towards the People themselves.

It's time you learn the difference between a Republic and a strict democracy.

Whatever terminology you choose, duly elected republican authorities conducted and oversaw the operations.:peace
 
Whatever terminology you choose, duly elected republican authorities conducted and oversaw the operations.:peace

All government tends towards tyranny; tis the inevitable path of unrestrained government. The founders well warned against this, history has taught us this. A Republic understands the reality that government in corruptible and hence the final say is withing the People themselves. It doesn't matter what "duly elected authorities" (particularly when the system is rigged against competition and we are given no real choice is 'duly elected' ") have to say, should they act against the rights and liberties of the individual it is the People's prerogative, their duty, to replace it with one that will protect the People's freedom.

The fatal flaw of your argument is that it assumes that our "duly elected republican authorities" are telling us the truth and the whole truth. Which is why it breaks down. Those in charge have obviously defined their actions in a way that would be "legal" according to themselves.
 
All government tends towards tyranny; tis the inevitable path of unrestrained government. The founders well warned against this, history has taught us this. A Republic understands the reality that government in corruptible and hence the final say is withing the People themselves. It doesn't matter what "duly elected authorities" (particularly when the system is rigged against competition and we are given no real choice is 'duly elected' ") have to say, should they act against the rights and liberties of the individual it is the People's prerogative, their duty, to replace it with one that will protect the People's freedom.

The fatal flaw of your argument is that it assumes that our "duly elected republican authorities" are telling us the truth and the whole truth. Which is why it breaks down. Those in charge have obviously defined their actions in a way that would be "legal" according to themselves.

I feel not the slightest threat from those operations.:peace
 
I feel not the slightest threat from those operations.:peace

I would not expect a Statist to protest. So what impact is your comment here other than to deflect against any other point proposed?
 
I would not expect a Statist to protest. So what impact is your comment here other than to deflect against any other point proposed?

I merely try to point out the nonsensical nature of alarmist posts.:peace
 
The operations Snowden exposed were legally undertaken by our elected government. They were constitutionally overseen by our elected representatives in Congress. If our government were not doing what Snowden claims then they would be derelict in their duty.:cool:

"Legally undertaken", well then maybe that is the problem. The american people never intended for this to ever be legal. The constitution is a framework to prevent dictatorships and rogue government. It was not intended that it ever be compromised. But now we have laws being changed while everybody slept at night, and executive orders that are slowly transforming america into a police state.
The biggest problem is that while most americans certainly don't want a police state gestapo society, they are complacent because they don't believe it is really happening because the NWO/american government has been careful to create media diversions as the slow and gradual changes are made. They are pleased that they can create these false flag operations and botch them up so badly, but somehow still pull it off. Most americans buy it all hook line and sinker every time. They don't question anything. The only ones who see through it all are the ones who use street smarts as a filter for any information that pertains to government.

If these NSA activities were within legal scope, as you say, then Snowden is trying to wake US citizens up out of the lull they are in. Hey america, look what is legal - look what your complacency has allowed!

They do not need to have a police state in order to not be derelict. We have a ready and able and powerful military. If what they were doing was so effective and anything more than what it is, they would be able to stop things like the boson bombing. If they focus their attention away from their war with it's own citizens, that is.
 
You're right, that is the problem with most people. However, I teach classified applied math to our military and know how infosec works.

When you take a position requiring trust and break that trust, the consequences should be proportional to the degree of trust that was given. For example, cops breaking the law should receive harsher sentences than civilians. Moreover, an intentional breach is the worst kind. This wasn't like a slip of the tongue. In particular, releasing secrets for enemies is about as unpatriotic as it gets. Lastly, I find life sentences to prison pointless, so just kill him and get it over with.

yes and the American CITIZEN trusted the NSA and Gov. Guess what they got.?????

spying and FREE TRADE..................
 
yes and the American CITIZEN trusted the NSA and Gov. Guess what they got.?????

spying and FREE TRADE..................

Again, apply some ****ing common sense. What do you think the simple metadata was being used for?
 
I said no because calling him a patriot or otherwise seems, at least to me, a bit arbitrary. Snowden chose to release information that showed that the government was directly violating the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens. In my view, I see this as a good thing because it alerts many to government power abuse. Likewise, given that I subscribe to the idea that fear is not a legitimate reason to have our liberties curbed, let alone our right to privacy, Snowden confirmed, for me and others that subscribe to the same point of view, that the government is doing just that.

Likewise, the leaking of every action of the government is, in my view, not something I would desire to see happen. Only in cases where the rights and privacy of the citizens are being violated or unwarranted abuses of power/atrocities would I wish to see such information revealed. I briefly worked for Homeland Security analyzing data and was sworn to secrecy about a variety of things. Some of which I would reasonably not want the public to know. Had I encountered information that revealed direct violation of our rights, perhaps I would have done the same.

To summarize, I don't think Snowden did a horrible thing. Likewise, I don't think he revealed anything that most of us didn't already suspect. However, I acknowledge the risk that intelligence leaks pose to our security. But one of this nature, in my opinion, needed to be revealed.
 
No and also who cares
 
Again, apply some ****ing common sense. What do you think the simple metadata was being used for?

appears you are standing on 'the ends justify the means' argument

could we not do that with each of our liberties, to justify ending them?
 
Again, apply some ****ing common sense. What do you think the simple metadata was being used for?

Does not matter. They should not have it at all.

See even when they spy and have all the phone calls, Like YEARS before 9/11, they still do nothing but give some FBI agent first names 2 months before the planned attack.

So they must be useing it for something else......ummmm.......what can that be????
 
If we want a transparent government we need whistleblowers like Snowden. I certainly don't blame him for not turning himself in considering what happened to Bradley Manning who was kept in isolation and tortured.
 
Is Snowden a patriot for leaking that the NSA was tapping thousands of phone calls without warrants?

No, he's just another idiot who's going to get himself killed over nothing. Being a "patriot" implies actually doing something for your country. Allegedly leaking something that the American populace is apparently too stupid to piece together on their own accomplishes nothing.
 
If we want a transparent government we need whistleblowers like Snowden.
Why? All they do is martyr themselves for media attention before an uncaring populace that turns a blind eye to anything they can't solve by wearing kitschy t shirt, or donating pocket change.

I certainly don't blame him for not turning himself in considering what happened to Bradley Manning who was kept in isolation and tortured.
Bradley Manning was rightfully imprisoned for what he did.
 
Why? All they do is martyr themselves for media attention before an uncaring populace that turns a blind eye to anything they can't solve by wearing kitschy t shirt, or donating pocket change.

Snowden only gave one interview. I think he did this country a service by bringing the NSA to the publics attention which has allowed public debate on just how much of our liberty we're willing to give up in the name of security.

Bradley Manning was rightfully imprisoned for what he did.

Thats debatable.
 
Snowden only gave one interview. I think he did this country a service by bringing the NSA to the publics attention which has allowed public debate on just how much of our liberty we're willing to give up in the name of security.
It was already brought to the public's attention in 2006. AT&T faced a lawsuit, but was let off the hook by Congress while the Supreme Court declared that they would not hear any case on the matter. The American people failed, just like they'll fail again and again and again, no matter what the public debate is about.



Thats debatable.
No it isn't. He was an active member of the military who stole and disseminated classified military documents. There's no "grey area" in UCMJ like there is with civilian law.
 
It was already brought to the public's attention in 2006. AT&T faced a lawsuit, but was let off the hook by Congress while the Supreme Court declared that they would not hear any case on the matter. The American people failed, just like they'll fail again and again and again, no matter what the public debate is about.
The public has a short attention span. But I remember that lawsuit and thinking I was glad I wasn't an AT&T customer. I also remember the government reassuring the public they wouldn't be spied on and the FBI and police would still need to get a warrant from a secret court. So it's good that Snowden brought it back into the limelight and exposed the government abusing the NSA wiretap laws. How we would know unless someone was brave enough to blow the whistle?

No it isn't. He was an active member of the military who stole and disseminated classified military documents. There's no "grey area" in UCMJ like there is with civilian law.
From what I understand neither Manning or Snowden released any information that couldn't already be found on the internet or that terrorists didn't already know. Seems the only people who don't know or care what our country is doing are the American people.
 
Back
Top Bottom