• 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
How we would know unless someone was brave enough to blow the whistle?
Deductive reasoning.

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.
Manning stole classified documents and disseminated them illegally. Nothing about that is debatable.
 
Deductive reasoning.


Manning stole classified documents and disseminated them illegally. Nothing about that is debatable.

how do these instances differ from the disclosure of the pentagon papers?
 
Snowden and Manning constitute the totality of our transparent government.

Please don't taze me Big Bro.
 
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.

Are you familiar with "the public trust"? What should happen to those that break the trust given politicians by consent of the people?
 
Are you familiar with "the public trust"? What should happen to those that break the trust given politicians by consent of the people?

We've all had a time when daddy had to give you the reason "because I said so", e.g. when you were a little boy asking why you couldn't watch the Playboy channel. Do you have any idea what percentage of the public has no clue about infosec and national security?
 
Why the hell do people keep labeling anyone who comes forward and does the right thing a "hero" or a "patriot". He's neither. He's a decent human being. Maybe the NSA ought to give that a shot.
 
Daniel Ellsberg wasn't a member of the Uniformed Services, nor was he ever a member of the CIA.

but did he not disclose classified information
and share with us how the court ruled, whether his disclosures should be found lawful or not
 
We've all had a time when daddy had to give you the reason "because I said so", e.g. when you were a little boy asking why you couldn't watch the Playboy channel. Do you have any idea what percentage of the public has no clue about infosec and national security?

We are NOT children. And I don't care about your narrow personal knowledge of infosec. Gov't abuses go FAR beyond that. It's a broad question which you failed to answer. As for me, even if I wasn't in the know (and I'm in the know) of national secutiry, all I would need to know is the history of every gov't since civ began and the wisdom of our founders based upon that knowledge.

Same question as before.
 
Was he under UCMJ, or the very strict nondisclosure policies of the NSA?

then your position is that if he had been bound by such provisions he would have been found other than a legal whistleblower?
 
The word patriot is a word with no meaning in todays society like HERO. I have no clue whether he is or not but he did what was right and now he is being hounded for it so much for freedom of speech.

To me a Patriot is a person who does special services (and no that does not exclusively mean military) for their country for its benefit or continuation or betterment beyond what should be expected of a person. Today all you have to do is salute the flag and your a patriot. No your a citizen.
 
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.

You heard it here. The American people are the enemy.
 
then your position is that if he had been bound by such provisions he would have been found other than a legal whistleblower?

Obviously. If he signed a NDA, and then disclosed agency secrets. A whistleblower requires the agency to be committing wrong-doing. The NSA surveillance is absolutely and completely legal. Therefore, he is not a whistleblower, and he should be in jail in the US, awaiting his trial. Whether the NSA's program should be legal is an entirely different argument, but that discussion is irrelevant to our discussion here.

Furthermore, for the OP, the definition of a patriot is a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Snowden's actions are hostile to the national security interests of the USA. They were hostile to the government's policies, he has taken asylum in a country hostile to US foreign policy, he has not support the US against detractors and enemies, and he is a detractor.

By this definition, he is very clearly not a patriot.
 
Is Snowden a patriot for leaking that the NSA was tapping thousands of phone calls without warrants?

I'm not an expert on American constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution guarantees the civil right on privacy of correspondence, like all other constitutions of other civilized nations too.

So the US government violated the Constitution. Snowden is a true patriot for making that known.

Because a true patriot places the Constitution and the people's rights above the current government, and above a party and above a President. That's patriotism.

It doesn't matter what contract Snowden had signed. If that contract was against the Constitution, it was as illegal as it gets in the first place.
 
You heard it here. The American people are the enemy.

:roll:

Snowden made public information that may be used to track terrorists by examining metadata. If they know this, they can change the pattern by which they communicate. Snowden's leak allows them to more confidently secure their communications against monitoring by the NSA. That's the logic for the argument that he helped Al Qaeda.

This ties in very interestingly to Manning's case, and the verdict is, to me, a bit contradictory and I'm not sure what to make of it.

The ruling found Manning innocent of aiding the enemy. But at the same time, he was found guilty under the Espionage Act, therefore making leaking to the press an illegal act.

Additionally, this fascinating tid-bit was included, which would apply to this discussion.

Manning was also found guilty of "wrongfully and wantonly" causing to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the US, "having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accesible to the enemy". That guilty ruling could still have widest ramifications for news organisations working on investigations relating to US national security.

By that fact, I suppose, it seems Snowden would not be happy with the verdict.
 
I'm not an expert on American constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution guarantees the civil right on privacy of correspondence, like all other constitutions of other civilized nations too.

So the US government violated the Constitution. Snowden is a true patriot for making that known.

Because a true patriot places the Constitution and the people's rights above the current government, and above a party and above a President. That's patriotism.

It doesn't matter what contract Snowden had signed. If that contract was against the Constitution, it was as illegal as it gets in the first place.

The crux of your argument is that the surveillance program is unconstitutional. But until something is found unconstitutional, or a similar law was found unconstitutional, we can consider it to be constitutional.

This law has not been found unconstitutional. A lawsuit against the NSA by the Center for Constitutional Rights was dismissed by the 9th Circuit of Appeals, and they're requesting reconsideration. We'll see how that goes. Maybe they'll decide it is unconstitutional, but it doesn't appear likely.
 
The crux of your argument is that the surveillance program is unconstitutional. But until something is found unconstitutional, or a similar law was found unconstitutional, we can consider it to be constitutional.

This law has not been found unconstitutional. A lawsuit against the NSA by the Center for Constitutional Rights was dismissed by the 9th Circuit of Appeals, and they're requesting reconsideration. We'll see how that goes. Maybe they'll decide it is unconstitutional, but it doesn't appear likely.

If wiretapping ALL people at random is not unconstitutional, your Constitution is worth ****.
 
If wiretapping ALL people at random is not unconstitutional, your Constitution is worth ****.

Please, read more about what the NSA actually does before making impulsive statements. The NSA tracks metadata. Not conversations, and it's certainly not a wiretap program, but they track who you talk to, and how often you talk to them.

A physical example would be for them to see you at a park talking to different people and making a note of that. They don't know what's being said, only that the two people are talking. Its important to note, at this stage, they don't even know who you are. But, if they decide you are a person of interest, they submit a request for a warrant to look into who you are, and, if they are interested in you, they seek permission for a wiretap.

The courts have decided metadata is public information, that decision has been appealed and is heading to the Supreme Court, and we'll see what they say, which will most likely affirm the lower court's decision. I can provide the case name and briefing is requested.
 
Please, read more about what the NSA actually does before making impulsive statements. The NSA tracks metadata. Not conversations, and it's certainly not a wiretap program, but they track who you talk to, and how often you talk to them.

A physical example would be for them to see you at a park talking to different people and making a note of that. They don't know what's being said, only that the two people are talking. Its important to note, at this stage, they don't even know who you are. But, if they decide you are a person of interest, they submit a request for a warrant to look into who you are, and, if they are interested in you, they seek permission for a wiretap.

The courts have decided metadata is public information, that decision has been appealed and is heading to the Supreme Court, and we'll see what they say, which will most likely affirm the lower court's decision. I can provide the case name and briefing is requested.

I'm German, citizen of a very close ally of the US, and of a democratic republic. Snowden has made public that the NSA listened to millions of phone conversations in Germany, as well as tracking every bit of information posted online, including emails, not just of Germans, but of American citizens too.

If that's not unconstitutional, your Constitution is worth a flying ****.
 
I'm German, citizen of a very close ally of the US, and of a democratic republic. Snowden has made public that the NSA listened to millions of phone conversations in Germany, as well as tracking every bit of information posted online, including emails, not just of Germans, but of American citizens too.

I don't know about our what data we track in Germany, but I'm sorry to say that German citizens don't fall under the Constitution. But I don't think Berlin would admit that our surveillance program has probably helped them at some point or another. I'm not saying it has happened, but I think it's a possibility to consider. Because we are such close allies.

If that's not unconstitutional, your Constitution is worth a flying ****.

Again, to examine information about American citizens, there is a process the NSA must go through. Obviously they've gone through the process more than once, and have done an in-depth examination of American citizens. But that process includes court approval.

If you can't prove that the NSA bypassed the approval process (I know for a fact that you can't, because it is something I'm interested in myself), then the constitutionality remains intact at the time being.

On a side note, I do think that the court process is the weak link in the chain. I have not been able to find information about the criteria the court holds a request to before granting it, and I do know they've granted above 90% of the 500 some odd requests made. But, there is a process for challenging the constitutionality of the program, and thus far, it is legal.

Maybe you don't like it, but that doesn't diminish the program or the US Constitution in the slightest.
 
I don't think that Snowden is relevant. He is not the issue. What matters is that the information he provided illustrates an illegal and highly unethical effort by the government to spy on us. I agree with the OP's point, but a discussion on Snowden is designed to make him the point of discussion rather than the information he leaked.
 
The ones at fault are the morons who rule this country that thought that they could use thousands of people to do this and somehow it would remain secret. I suspect Al Qaeda knew about this long before the American Sheeple did.

Snowden is a hero, not a traitor.
 
:roll:

Snowden made public information that may be used to track terrorists by examining metadata. If they know this, they can change the pattern by which they communicate. Snowden's leak allows them to more confidently secure their communications against monitoring by the NSA. That's the logic for the argument that he helped Al Qaeda.

This ties in very interestingly to Manning's case, and the verdict is, to me, a bit contradictory and I'm not sure what to make of it.

The ruling found Manning innocent of aiding the enemy. But at the same time, he was found guilty under the Espionage Act, therefore making leaking to the press an illegal act.

Additionally, this fascinating tid-bit was included, which would apply to this discussion.



By that fact, I suppose, it seems Snowden would not be happy with the verdict.

I'm pretty sure that terrorists know that their typical communication can easily be tapped. Revealing universal wiretapping is a serious offense and is in no way useful to stopping terrorism. Anytime these administrations get caught doing this stuff they always scream terrorism. It's a scam.
 
I'm pretty sure that terrorists know that their typical communication can easily be tapped. Revealing universal wiretapping is a serious offense and is in no way useful to stopping terrorism. Anytime these administrations get caught doing this stuff they always scream terrorism. It's a scam.

There is a difference between knowing they can be tapped, and on what basis they may be tapped.

The "universal wiretapping" thing is a great strawman though. You should definitely stick to that, no one will notice the lack of foundation.
 
Back
Top Bottom