• 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!

Should Edward Snowden win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Should Edward Snowden win the Nobel Peace Prize

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 42.4%
  • No

    Votes: 32 48.5%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 6 9.1%

  • Total voters
    66
My vote is that he should win a couple of decades of residence in his own private room, with all of his meals and living expenses paid for by the federal government.

How dare he inform you that your government was spying on you! The balls! Lock him in the dungeon! :roll:

Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional - CNN.com

I guess to some people like yourself, the constitution is just a piece of paper that politicians can wipe their ass with.


What he made public might deserve to be public, but he as a person, someone who signed his name to a document in which he promised that he would keep what he saw secret and then betrayed his employer and the oath he took/signed.

So you think a confidentiality agreement overrules the constitution? When I was a soldier I swore to uphold and defend the constitution, and to protect the American people. His oath was essentially the same. Nowhere does it say **** about defending the honor of the politicians who made unconstitutional decisions.

If they were murdering kids in dark rooms, would you still think he belongs in jail for reporting what happened, or is there a situation where you feel he would be justified?
 
Last edited:
How dare he inform you that your government was spying on you! The balls! Lock him in the dungeon! :roll:

Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional - CNN.com

I guess to some people like yourself, the constitution is just a piece of paper that politicians can wipe their ass with.




So you think a confidentiality agreement overrules the constitution? When I was a soldier I swore to uphold and defend the constitution, and to protect the American people. His oath was essentially the same. Nowhere does it say **** about defending the honor of the politicians who made unconstitutional decisions.

If they were murdering kids in dark rooms, would you still think he belongs in jail for reporting what happened, or is there a situation where you feel he would be justified?

I agree with your whole post...but the highlighted part especially.

So many people flip out because he 'broke his oath'. What a bunch of nonsense.

Everyone's oath should always be to do what is right..not to do wrong things just because you took an oath.

Millions of German soldiers in WW2 took an oath not to Germany, but personally to Adolf Hitler. Does that mean that if they tried to stop the murder of innocent civilians against Hitler's specific orders that they are dishonorable? Of course not. They would be dishonorable if they didn't try and stop the murders.

Taking an oath to something rotten (like what the NSA was doing) does not excuse you from responsibility for helping them do that rotten thing.

You have a moral duty to decency and honor WAAAAAAY before some oath to some dumbass politician/big shot bureaucrat.

'I was just following orders' or 'I was just doing my job' is NO excuse for bad behavior.
 
No, because while he is a heroic man (regardless of whether you think he's a traitor or a hero, it takes balls of steel to snitch on the US govt) his actions didn't really promote peace. It didn't prevent a war, put an end to a war or anything of the sorts. The only thing he did was, you know... snitch on some nasty stuff that we should be thankful we know about.

I would give him that EU prize that he didn't get last year because it went to the palistinian girl who promoted education in her country and now around the world. Malala Yousafi or smth like that. Don't get me wrong, she deserved that prize simply because she took on and defied the talibans and mainstream islamic ideology and survived. But there is no reason why this year the prize can't go to Snowden.
 
YES. Better than that HELL YES. Although the Nobel prize is a joke, he's a billion times more deserving than POS Obama.

He's a true American hero.

1. He can take the Nobel if he likes. Certainly he is no worse than Arafat.

2. He's also no hero. He's a traitorous, whiny little coward. Those so excited about his disclosures on the NSA metadata program somehow forget that the little bastard also released a crap-ton of data on our collection against foreign terrorist networks, as well as against more traditional targets, such as other nation intentions. There are a few million people in Ukraine right now who sure wish that the U.S. and Europe were able to act in concert on foreign security and provide a counter to Russia implanting a dictatorship but oh - wait - Snowden lives in Russia and is Putin's tool now, and he screwed that up.


Sure, give him the prize. Then put him on trial, and if found guilty, have him shot.
 
Remember that I don't believe in Rights, Dave. So far as I'm concerned the Government should have the right to do whatever checking on anyone.... You, Me, anyone else they deem necessary to ensure the security of this nation.

Allow the government to do what ever it wanted all in the name of national security huh? Would you agree if the government made all homosexual marriages allowable? After all, it would promote more stability and would create even more homes for those children that are orphaned. How about taking guns away? After all...don't want the people rising against the government right? How about making a law which made all women the head of the household? IE: Only women can make financial decisions, decisions on how the children they bear are raised etc etc. Men are more violent than women after all. How about do away with voting altogether? After all...big gov knows better!

Soooo many things wrong with the "government should be allowed to do anything when it comes to national security" arguement.
 
1. He can take the Nobel if he likes. Certainly he is no worse than Arafat.

2. He's also no hero. He's a traitorous, whiny little coward. Those so excited about his disclosures on the NSA metadata program somehow forget that the little bastard also released a crap-ton of data on our collection against foreign terrorist networks, as well as against more traditional targets, such as other nation intentions. There are a few million people in Ukraine right now who sure wish that the U.S. and Europe were able to act in concert on foreign security and provide a counter to Russia implanting a dictatorship but oh - wait - Snowden lives in Russia and is Putin's tool now, and he screwed that up.


Sure, give him the prize. Then put him on trial, and if found guilty, have him shot.

I don't really have any interest in starting a debate with you on this subject because you've made it quite clear in the past that you will trade any amount of liberty for any amount of security. I think that's completely a coward's position, but you've heard me say that before.

Obama concedes NSA bulk collection of phone data may be unnecessary | World news | theguardian.com
Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional - CNN.com

Oh, and you're completely pulling the Russia bit out of your ass. We're totally powerless to stop Russia controlling Ukraine, all because of Snowden's leaks. How ridiculous. :lamo


I'll just leave you with a quote from the man in your avatar:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Ben Franklin
 
1. He can take the Nobel if he likes. Certainly he is no worse than Arafat.

2. He's also no hero. He's a traitorous, whiny little coward. Those so excited about his disclosures on the NSA metadata program somehow forget that the little bastard also released a crap-ton of data on our collection against foreign terrorist networks, as well as against more traditional targets, such as other nation intentions. There are a few million people in Ukraine right now who sure wish that the U.S. and Europe were able to act in concert on foreign security and provide a counter to Russia implanting a dictatorship but oh - wait - Snowden lives in Russia and is Putin's tool now, and he screwed that up.


Sure, give him the prize. Then put him on trial, and if found guilty, have him shot.

'he·ro noun \ˈhir-(ˌ)ō\
: a person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities

: a person who is greatly admired

: the chief male character in a story, play, movie, etc.'

Hero - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Snowden IS admired for what he did by many - including myself, Ron Paul and many others on here and across America.

That means by definition he IS a hero.
 
I don't really have any interest in starting a debate with you on this subject because you've made it quite clear in the past that you will trade any amount of liberty for any amount of security. I think that's completely a coward's position, but you've heard me say that before.

Obama concedes NSA bulk collection of phone data may be unnecessary | World news | theguardian.com
Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional - CNN.com

Oh, and you're completely pulling the Russia bit out of your ass. We're totally powerless to stop Russia controlling Ukraine, all because of Snowden's leaks. How ridiculous. :lamo


I'll just leave you with a quote from the man in your avatar:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Ben Franklin

:shrug: you are confusing my point with your own. I am not defending or attacking the NSA metadata collection program (which you mistakingly identify as "any amount of liberty"; especially given that the data was already being collected and stored); because that issue is separate from the question of whether or not Snowden is a hero.

If you want to tie the program and your opposition to it to Snowden, then you need to explain why your "hero" also exposed our collection methods against foreign targets, such terrorist networks and hostile nation-states. Those are not the actions of a "hero" attempting to defend the American people from their own government, those are the actions of someone endangering the American people from other actors for personal benefit. I have yet to see any of Snowden's defenders even attempt to defend the majority of his disclosures which have nothing whatsoever to do with US government domestic collection.

In the meantime, those who continue to defend Snowden out of some misplaced sense that they have to elevate him in order to dislike the metadata program only demonstrate the binary unseriousness of their movement. Slavery wasn't awesome because it allowed a bunch of black people to live in the relatively wonderful nation that is America today, WWII wasn't wonderful because it allowed us to access nuclear energy, and Snowden isn't a hero because one of the many pieces of classified information he exposed happened to be about a program you don't like.





Oh, and incidentally, the Russia thing isn't bunk at all. Snowden made his deal with the devil, and he is now Putin's tool. There is precisely zero coincidence in the fact that he did his best to damage US-Euro relations right before Russia made a play for Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
What he made public might deserve to be public, but he as a person, someone who signed his name to a document in which he promised that he would keep what he saw secret and then betrayed his employer and the oath he took/signed.
Essentially, you feel that any existing limits to a government's reach/power can be effectively and legitimately negated if all you do is get employees to sign a piece of paper stating that they will play along.

How convenient.
 
Should Edward Snowden win the Nobel Peace Prize?

(he has been nominated, apparently)

I cannot see that it matters in the least.

Whatever meaning the Nobel Peace prize might still have had at that point, it completely discarded it when the prize was given to Al Gore, for his massive, fraudulent propaganda effort in favor of bigger government; and later to Barak Obama, for having accomplished exactly nothing other than being elected to a public office that had previously been held by many, much more worthy men than himself.


I can't say that anything that Snowden has done or is alleged to have done rises to anything like what Alfred Nobel had in mind when he created this prize, but he did, at great sacrifice to himself, perform a valuable service to all Americans by calling out the illegal activities of our own government against us. Perhaps that is deserving of some prize, and on further thought, the prestige of having been awarded this prize (however meaningless it now is) would serve to undermine our government's credibility in its ongoing efforts to treat Mr. Snowden as a criminal, in retaliation exposing the government's criminality. Mr. Snowden could become an American counterpart to Andrei Sakharov; and the Nobel committee could thus regain a huge amount of the credibility that it has so carelessly discarded in the past few decades.
 
0
Essentially, you feel that any existing limits to a government's reach/power can be effectively and legitimately negated if all you do is get employees to sign a piece of paper stating that they will play along.

How convenient.

It is not the piece of paper but the trust behind it and the honor of the person who signs it (combined with the penalties that can be expected if you break that solemn oath).
 
0

It is not the piece of paper but the trust behind it and the honor of the person who signs it (combined with the penalties that can be expected if you break that solemn oath).
I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.
 
I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.

They might be violating the constitution but that is not the issue IMHO, that is something the supreme court has to decide. There are laws that make the behavior of the politicians and the government possibly completelely/largely legal. Betraying your oath as a employee of the government is illegal according to the law. I may not want him to be punished too hard (haven't made up my mind about that) but he certainly does not deserve the nobel peace prize.
 
They might be violating the constitution but that is not the issue IMHO, that is something the supreme court has to decide. There are laws that make the behavior of the politicians and the government possibly completelely/largely legal. Betraying your oath as a employee of the government is illegal according to the law. I may not want him to be punished too hard (haven't made up my mind about that) but he certainly does not deserve the nobel peace prize.

If it's top secret, how is it supposed to even get to the supreme court? Whether it's unconstitutional or not is the issue, and without knowing about it we can't discuss that issue. When you swear an oath you swear an oath to the American people and the constitution. That's what he swore to, and that's what he's chosen to put first.

I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.

I called PeterKing on it before, and he seems to be of the opinion that no matter what horrible things your government is doing, even if they're killing kids in dark rooms, you HAVE to keep your mouth shut.
 
If it's top secret, how is it supposed to even get to the supreme court? Whether it's unconstitutional or not is the issue, and without knowing about it we can't discuss that issue. When you swear an oath you swear an oath to the American people and the constitution. That's what he swore to, and that's what he's chosen to put first.



I called PeterKing on it before, and he seems to be of the opinion that no matter what horrible things your government is doing, even if they're killing kids in dark rooms, you HAVE to keep your mouth shut.

I am not saying you should under all circumstances keep your mouth shut but if there is not a very important overwhelmingly critical reason to betray your country/your oath, then you have to keep your mouth shut or if that is too much for your conscience to live with, you will have to accept the consequences.

One consequence however should not be receiving the nobel peace prize.
 
Possibly. What the hell is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded for, anyways?
 
he should win the Congressional Gold Medal, since Congress just passes this off to the Senate/House Intelligence Committees.
Be nice to see Congress in full actually debate the merits of the various programs.

But hey. It's an election year and Congress has a lot to do to get re-elected.
 
It is not the piece of paper but the trust behind it and the honor of the person who signs it (combined with the penalties that can be expected if you break that solemn oath).

I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.

They might be violating the constitution but that is not the issue IMHO, that is something the supreme court has to decide. There are laws that make the behavior of the politicians and the government possibly completelely [sic]/largely legal. Betraying your oath as a employee of the government is illegal according to the law. I may not want him to be punished too hard (haven't made up my mind about that) but he certainly does not deserve the nobel peace prize.

Surely the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution trumps any other oath that any public servant may take in connection with any work for or in affiliation with any government in this nation.

Do you suppose Mr. Snowden took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? Surely, he did. And if he found that those with whom he was working were violating the Constitution, then surely his oath to defend the Constitution would trump any other oath or agreement that might seek to compel him to keep his mouth shut and go along with that violation of the Constitution.

In fact, knowing that illegal activity is going on, being a part of that illegal activity (even if unintentionally) and failing to speak out against it, would surely have made Mr. Snowden an accessory to that illegal activity, making him subject to prosecution right along with the criminals with whom he was working. So really, he was damned either way. Either keep his mouth shut, and be an accessory to the criminality in which he found himself involved; or speak out, and face charges for violating his oath of secrecy.


There are laws that make the behavior of the politicians and the government possibly completelely [sic]/largely legal.

Never if that behavior violates the Constitution. The Constitution trumps every other law.
 
Last edited:
Possibly. What the hell is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded for, anyways?

Nothing meaningful any more.

It's been awarded to terrorists like Yassir Arafat and Nelson Mandela for being terrorists. It's been awarded to Al Gore for his massive, fraudulent moneymaking scam based on the “global warming” hoax. It's been awarded to President Obama for nothing more than having been recently elected President.

Whatever the prize may once have stood for, whatever Alfred Nobel may have intended it to stand for, now it stands for nothing.
 
So why is there so much attention being given to trying to extradite Mr. Snowden, and bring criminal charges against him, while no comparable attention to efforts to prosecute the criminals whose illegal activities he exposed?
 
So why is there so much attention being given to trying to extradite Mr. Snowden, and bring criminal charges against him, while no comparable attention to efforts to prosecute the criminals whose illegal activities he exposed?
Oh, those people are being dealt with, but in a proper investigative process that cannot be commented on due to security and privacy concerns.

*wink wink nod nod*
 
I think he should get it. Here was a guy that was not afraid to let people know what the government is doing. This is a true patriot.
 
Back
Top Bottom