• 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... today.

Edward Snowden... today.

  • Hero

    Votes: 36 45.6%
  • Traitor

    Votes: 21 26.6%
  • Somewhere in-between (please elaborate)

    Votes: 22 27.8%

  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Edward Snowden... today. (15 December 2013)

Now that some time has passed, and we have had a chance to view some of the ramifications of his actions, and how the government has reacted, how do you view Edward Snowden today?

Hero? Traitor? Somewhere in between?

Does your view of him today vary from your initial view after he first released documents?
 
By exposing what he knew he betrayed his government but maybe not the people of the US an the world. So on the one hand he is a traitor for making secrets public and on the other hand he has made public some things the public should have been told ages ago and that makes him kind of a hero too.
 
Very simply, and truly the only accurate term for him is whistle-blower. Then the question is, imo, whether he did it for glory or for the good of the country. Since he could've just as easily sold any/all of his information to other countries or whatever, and instead he chose to have it published fully under the guide of two responsible papers, I'd say he did it for the latter not the former. Additionally he is paying heavily for it, even if he is never arrested or returned to the US. So I'd say he acted heroically. Whether he is a hero or not is like beauty and in the eye of the beholder.
 
By exposing what he knew he betrayed his government but maybe not the people of the US an the world. So on the one hand he is a traitor for making secrets public and on the other hand he has made public some things the public should have been told ages ago and that makes him kind of a hero too.

This is a fair statement.
 
At one point in time, he took an oath.

His oath went a little something like this:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

He upheld that oath. For that, he's a hero (and he has more testicular fortitude than most). He has no allegiance to the government, just the American people and the constitution. "We the people".
 
Edward Snowden... today. (15 December 2013)

Now that some time has passed, and we have had a chance to view some of the ramifications of his actions, and how the government has reacted, how do you view Edward Snowden today?

Hero? Traitor? Somewhere in between?

Does your view of him today vary from your initial view after he first released documents?

My view hasn't changed since it happened, I've just gotten more and more respect for him as time went along. He's a hero and deserves a medal and our undying admiration. Our government needs to be kept on a tight leash. They think that they can do whatever the hell they want and violate our constitution, and he brought those instances to light.

Defending the constitution and the American people at the peril of tyrannical leaders can never be treason.
 
At one point in time, he took an oath.

His oath went a little something like this:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

He upheld that oath. For that, he's a hero (and he has more testicular fortitude than most). He has no allegiance to the government, just the American people and the constitution. "We the people".

Those duties include protecting the details of classified data/methods. It is not necessary to release classified details of data collected or the specific methods used to get that data. For example one can assert that the US is paying assassins to take out US citzens suspected of criminal/terrorist activities without releasing the names of those doing the paying, those receiving payment or those targetted for elimmination. One can also, as Snowden appears to have done, keep a cache of backup details to be released to cleared members of the executive, lefislative and judicial authorities to prove the veracity of his accusations. Release of classified details to the press directly was not necessary to blow the whistle on the nature of this alleged extra constituional activity.
 
My view hasn't changed since it happened, I've just gotten more and more respect for him as time went along. He's a hero and deserves a medal and our undying admiration. Our government needs to be kept on a tight leash. They think that they can do whatever the hell they want and violate our constitution, and he brought those instances to light.

Defending the constitution and the American people at the peril of tyrannical leaders can never be treason.
Pretty much my opinion as well. The government's actions and reactions since then, if anything, have only served to reinforce my conclusions.
 
Those duties include protecting the details of classified data/methods. It is not necessary to release classified details of data collected or the specific methods used to get that data. For example one can assert that the US is paying assassins to take out US citzens suspected of criminal/terrorist activities without releasing the names of those doing the paying, those receiving payment or those targetted for elimmination. One can also, as Snowden appears to have done, keep a cache of backup details to be released to cleared members of the executive, lefislative and judicial authorities to prove the veracity of his accusations. Release of classified details to the press directly was not necessary to blow the whistle on the nature of this alleged extra constituional activity.
And if said "cleared members of the executive, lefislative and judicial authorities" were/are complicit in these illegal activities?
 
And if said "cleared members of the executive, lefislative and judicial authorities" were/are complicit in these illegal activities?

All of them? That is extremely unlikely, but in that event, a small portion (redacted as necessary) of his proof could be released to the press. It has been reported that he has indeed kept a backup cache of even more sensiitive classified data as "insurance".

Edward Snowden could have
 
Those duties include protecting the details of classified data/methods. It is not necessary to release classified details of data collected or the specific methods used to get that data. For example one can assert that the US is paying assassins to take out US citzens suspected of criminal/terrorist activities without releasing the names of those doing the paying, those receiving payment or those targetted for elimmination. One can also, as Snowden appears to have done, keep a cache of backup details to be released to cleared members of the executive, lefislative and judicial authorities to prove the veracity of his accusations. Release of classified details to the press directly was not necessary to blow the whistle on the nature of this alleged extra constituional activity.

So he should've just made claims without proof, and kept the American people in the dark, while trying to fight the system from the inside. Yeah, historically taking on the government through legal channels has always played out wonderfully. :roll:

Even our commander in chief was in on it. Who was he supposed to tell? The programs were blessed off by congress and the president. The only option he had was to alert the American people of what was being done in our names, and for that we owe him.

And nevermind the fact that he is being extremely discriminatory when releasing data. He's only doing it after he's combed through it. Have you seen any spies names released yet? Your argument seems to be that his first loyalty should be to his office, and not the American people or the constitution. If his job required him to kill children in dark rooms, should he? Or should he maybe let the American people know about what is being done?
 
Last edited:
So he should've just made claims without proof, and kept the American people in the dark, while trying to fight the system from the inside. Yeah, historically taking on the government through legal channels has always played out wonderfully. :roll:

Even our commander in chief was in on it. Who was he supposed to tell? The programs were blessed off by congress and the president. The only option he had was to alert the American people of what was being done in our names, and for that we owe him.

And nevermind the fact that he is being extremely discriminatory when releasing data. He's only doing it after he's combed through it. Have you seen any spies names released yet? Your argument seems to be that his first loyalty should be to his office, and not the American people or the constitution. If his job required him to kill children in dark rooms, should he? Or should he maybe let the American people know about what is being done?

You know the bolded to be true just how? The result has been what? He is holed up outside the US and it is very unlikely that his foreign "hosts" are doing that out of concern for the integrity of the US constitution or our national interests. The odds are tremendous that he is doling out more (and different) classified information to pay his "rent" since his departure.
 
You know the bolded to be true just how? The result has been what? He is holed up outside the US and it is very unlikely that his foreign "hosts" are doing that out of concern for the integrity of the US constitution or our national interests. The odds are tremendous that he is doling out more (and different) classified information to pay his "rent" since his departure.

Are you claiming that Barrack Obama had no knowledge whatsoever of our spying programs? To you he was just a victim?

And we know he's being extremely discriminatory because of the very reason I explained to you: He has 500,000+ documents and he's only released a small portion, none of which have had spy names or anything of the sort.

And now you want to condemn him for doing things you THINK he's doing but you have no evidence of?
 
Edward Snowden... today. (15 December 2013)

Now that some time has passed, and we have had a chance to view some of the ramifications of his actions, and how the government has reacted, how do you view Edward Snowden today?

Hero? Traitor? Somewhere in between?

Does your view of him today vary from your initial view after he first released documents?

I don't think that my view has changed very much. He obviously acted against the law and is a traitor. What he did certainly will raise awareness among the criminals we want those instruments of data mining deployed against and will help them a little. Also the backlash in the populations of allied countries have reacted negatively even where their own governments knew how important the use of the technology is and helped NSA on the ground.

On the other hand, it is a good reason to relive the controls we have in place and punish any infringement of present rules. We must guard against misuse by government of such powerful instruments. So in that sense he did help us a bit.

What he did was certainly courageous,self centered and/ or stupid. But you will usually have that, when someone thinks the government is breaking the law, which it seems to have been doing. How is the guy supposed to act? Whatever he does is wrong.

So, yes he is a criminal. But we seem to need a better legal mechanism to allow a whistle blower to blow in such a way that it does less harm and puts an effective strong check on mischievous behavior by government people.
 
Edward Snowden... today. (15 December 2013)

Now that some time has passed, and we have had a chance to view some of the ramifications of his actions, and how the government has reacted, how do you view Edward Snowden today?

Hero? Traitor? Somewhere in between?

Does your view of him today vary from your initial view after he first released documents?

If anyone aside from Nelson Mandela qualifies as a hero, it would be Ed Snowden! ON a thread about the Pope being named Man of the year, I posted that by TIME's supposed standard - Ed Snowden should have won that award, because he has had more impact than the Pope or any everyone else this year. Would anyone be talking about the NSA, and a surveillance apparatus that is international in scope, if Ed Snowden hadn't taken his files with him on that trip to Hong Kong?

It was absolutely sickening to watch the spin and damage control by Obama & Co. afterwards....namely that the system has checks and balances, and Snowden could have addressed his concerns by going through proper channels....bull**** all the way around! Because the checks are FISA courts, which we are discovering more and more everyday, are nothing better than rubberstamps who approve every request that crosses their desks. And, if anyone is familiar with retired NSA and CIA employees who became whistleblowers, like Thomas Drake and Russel Tice, in interviews today, they are the biggest fans of Ed Snowden, because they didn't take the evidence to back up their allegations...which were denied by the White House, and now all of the allegations they made about mass scale data collection has been provided to prove that the Administration officials are the ones who have been lying. So, if Snowden had gone through the proper channels like the other whistleblowers, he would have also been ignored and marginalized as a delusional crank.
 
Are you claiming that Barrack Obama had no knowledge whatsoever of our spying programs? To you he was just a victim?
Or maybe he's still playing that "three dimensional chess" game that Tom Hartmann used to pull out as an excuse when Obama was starting to disappoint the Democratic base a year in to the job.

Seriously, these Democrats aren't going to be happy when these surveillance tools are back in the hands of a Republican president. So, if they don't hold the Obama Administration to the same standard they would apply to a Republican, then they have guaranteed the further entrenchment of the surveillance state.
 
Edward Snowden... today. (15 December 2013)

Now that some time has passed, and we have had a chance to view some of the ramifications of his actions, and how the government has reacted, how do you view Edward Snowden today?

Hero? Traitor? Somewhere in between?

Does your view of him today vary from your initial view after he first released documents?

I say hero.If anyone is a traitor it is those in the NSA who do the domestic spying and those who ordered the NSA to violate the Constitution.
 
Both - to the U.S. government he is a traitor, to the American people he is a hero.
The real question here is: Has the U.S. government betrayed the U.S.A. (i.e. the American people and the Constitution)?
 
1) Are you claiming that Barrack Obama had no knowledge whatsoever of our spying programs? To you he was just a victim?

2) And we know he's being extremely discriminatory because of the very reason I explained to you: He has 500,000+ documents and he's only released a small portion, none of which have had spy names or anything of the sort.

And now you want to condemn him for doing things you THINK he's doing but you have no evidence of?

1) No. I am claiming that the law was not broken. It may well be an unconstitutional law, as many are, including gun control laws. Setting a precedent that one's "strong personal belief" that a law is unconstitutional means that breaking that law is OK is not a wise idea.

2) In your opinion he was justified in releasing classified information that you deem to be harmless, or even his patriotic duty, because you were not aware of it. If you and folks of like mind are on his jury then his breaking of the law can be nullified by the jury.
 
Last edited:
1) No. I am claiming that the law was not broken. It may well be an unconstitutional law, as many are, including gun control laws. Setting a precedent that one's "strong personal belief" that a law is unconstitutional means that breaking that law is OK is not a wise idea.

2) In your opinion he was justified in releasing classified information that you deem to be harmless, or even his patriotic duty, because you were not aware of it. If you and folks of like mind are on his jury then his breaking of the law can be nullified by the jury.

Yeah, about his would be trial. Then he could be held for 2+ years without trial like Manning, tortured, and given a secret trial. I'm sure the jury in that secret trial would use it as an opportunity to change the system. And you think I live in a dream world?
 
Cant really say. I dont know that we really know what the 'real' story really is. But...

The way our system of government work is that people that work in the government do NOT practice situational ethics. If what Snowden did, or what Manning did, or Aldrich Ames for that matter is overlooked or excused or justified, we really open ourselves up to chaos and potential anarchy. Imagine a military leadership that rather than following the orders of the leaders appointed over them decide instead to act based on what they perceive is right, moral, or unjust. How well does that work? How long?
 
If you think he didn't share things- much more than has been made public- with the Chinese and Russians, you're so gullible. Circumstantial evidence would indicate that was his goal- the entire point of what he did.

Now, if you don't care about treason, then no biggie.
 
He betrayed the US government, his employer...but not the American people.




That statement SHOULD speak volumes, and be all that is needed to be said.
 
If you think he didn't share things- much more than has been made public- with the Chinese and Russians, you're so gullible. Circumstantial evidence would indicate that was his goal- the entire point of what he did.

Now, if you don't care about treason, then no biggie.


More bath tub bubbles. Please post links to prove your accusations.
 
Back
Top Bottom