• 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 traitor?

Read article ... Do you agree he is a traitor or disagree?

  • Total voters
    81
Is Snowden a traitor....probably not.


Is he a prick, bastard worthy of disdain......definitely.
 
Alyssa said:
yes, yes.. the US is a victim now.. PAHleeez. It's about time the US government is exposed for the corrupt organization it really is. And make no mistake, secrets/intrigue destroy free societies. How can government officials be held accountable if no one knows what is going on? They cannot. But they freely lie to the public knowing that nothing will come of it, and the corruption continues. If someone does have the gonads to speak up, they are discredited as a traitor, and people conveniently ignore blatant constitutional violations. Security or liberty- pick one. Because you cannot have both.
Click to expand...

First, citizens shouldn't know everything their government does, period.

Second, you seem to conveniently ignore that he's given US secrets regarding overseas operations to foreign governments. Why?
 
Informing the American people of the wrongdoings of its government is only "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" if the American people are the enemy of the nation. That is a terrible precedent to set. Citing the fact that we have widespread communications as reason to never reveal the government's wrongdoing sets another terrible precedent. The government must be responsible to the people, not the other way around, and that will not happen if it can keep secrets with impunity.

If this whole situation proves anything, it is that there much be a mechanism to oversee the government's claims of national security and classification of information. Someone outside the intelligence community must balance the interests of the people and of keeping the intelligence community in check over that community's interests. A system must be put in place so that the government cannot simply invoke security and privilege at will and so actions like Snowden's won't be necessary. Without that system, this is what we'll get.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
First, citizens shouldn't know everything their government does, period.

Second, you seem to conveniently ignore that he's given US secrets regarding overseas operations to foreign governments. Why?
Click to expand...

There is little the public shouldn't know about its government. I don't ignore that Snowden leaked information regarding US operations overseas. However, I do not support every US operation overseas. Piracy is what it amounts to.. Americans stealing everyone else's resources in the name of preserving liberty. Of course, Russia may invade another country. But Russia does it in the open. That's the difference.

Wiggen said:
Yeah, but it isn't your blood, is it? Thanks to the traitor Snowden, it's likely to be some 19 year old kid from Kansas who's blood gets shed. I think you'd be far happier with a leader like Putin and an Oligarchy like Russia.

I love hypocrites who complain about their country and their government yet have no problem availing themselves of the opportunities provided by such a terrible country and government.
Click to expand...

You assume. That's all. You have no idea what my life experiences have been. But this isn't about me. It would be great if you could keep that in mind.

btw, Jefferson is quoted as saying, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The force that keeps its government in check is a free society. People have to be informed for a democracy/republic to function. As I said, there are far too many secrets and special interests within this government.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
First, citizens shouldn't know everything their government does, period.

Second, you seem to conveniently ignore that he's given US secrets regarding overseas operations to foreign governments. Why?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that, since he so treasures our rights, why then run to where they have very little regard for rights?
 
Wiggen said:
Is it the
Supreme Law of the Land in Russia?
Click to expand...

Of course not.It is however of the US.

Because that's where Snowden and all of his secrets decided to go to.
Click to expand...

He went there because other countries would have extradited him and had might to stand up to the US should the US try to use intimidation to coerce extradition.

I'm glad you're comfortable with Putin and the Russian Oligarchs having access to all of our military secrets. I'm not.
Click to expand...
I am glad you are comfortable with our government spying on Americans. I am not. According to government officials Snowden gave them secrets. the same government that lied to us and said they were not spying on us.The government lacks any credibility what so ever.The idea that you would expect anyone to believe a word they say is laughable.
 
joG said:
He did horrendous damage to the USA that has increased the costs of doing business and the effectiveness of American policy. It was unnecessary, as the man could have gone another way.
Click to expand...

What other way could he have gone?Give the info to an American media and hope they would report it while fearing that the government might do something to him?
 
cpwill said:
That's right it does.
Click to expand...

Many elected officials make a similar oath.
I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

I notice you did not answer my question that you quoted.

"What about those wiping their ass with the Constitution? Aren't they the traitorous douchbags?"


Why did your little "hero" feel the need to put your brothers lives in danger? What provision of the Constitution protects the Taliban from SIGINT collection?
Click to expand...

Spies are not my brothers.
 
jamesrage said:
Why should someone be punished for doing the right thing? He would probably be in prison or worse right now if he stayed in the US.
Click to expand...

He would have been treated like Manning, or worse, including being held in solitary confinement (which is a form of torture) for years before even going to trial.
 
Whistle-blowers need to have some form of protection. It doesn't help that the United States constantly threatened to punish Snowden to the fullest extent of the law, even after Snowden said that he would come back to United States (while he was on the run) on the condition that he was provided clemency. If he came back to the United States, he would have faced life imprisonment. I don't condone him going to Russia, but keep in mind that Russia was not on his shortlist of places to seek asylum.
 
X Factor said:
Zero to Godwin in 40 posts. :2razz:
Click to expand...

The international laws that says it is illegal to obey an illegal order were inspired by revulsion at what happened in Nazi Germany. Those events were extreme, but far from unique, and Nazi tactics such as incarceration without trial, torture of suspects, and genocidal mass killings are still used today, just on a smaller scale. The comparison is completely relevant to this dicussion.
 
X Factor said:
And then promptly turned national security information over to the Russians in return for asylum.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that he has given any information to anyone but journalists. Russia was sufficviently compensated for taking him in by the positive PR it generated for them.
 
Condemning Snowden requires holding these beliefs:

  • Allowing our government to obtain and use the ability to spy on virtually anyone, anywhere at anytime benefits us citizens.
  • We can trust the government to use their top secret programs only for our protection.
  • We can trust the government to harm other people only when there is a known threat to our safety and there is no viable alternative.
  • The interests of the politicians, bureaucrats, military personnel, contractors and vendors that control our intelligence and security apparatus are exactly the same as the public's interests.
  • The USA should have the ability to control the political decisions made by every other nation.
 
X Factor said:
Absolutely I can blame him and I do. Not finding the argument that avoiding potential punishment is justification for being a sell out particularly compelling.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement that whistleblowers be martyrs also. There is no evidence he gave information to anyone but journalists. or that he was paid for any information. He lost almost everything and gained nothing personally.
 
Redress said:
None of which is relevant to whether be broke the law, or whether that law is constitutional. Nowhere in the Espionage Act does it say you can deliver secrets to those who should not have access if you somehow feel justified to do so.
Click to expand...

So what? The question isn't whether he broke any laws, the question is whether he had a sufficiently good reason to do it.
 
joG said:
Well, sometimes one needs to read beyond the founders' scripture, as good as that is. This here might interest you:

"18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason | LII / Legal Information Institute

Now you might not like that or want it changed. But it stands and is applicable as of this time.
Click to expand...

By that definition, Snowden is not a traitor.
 
NIMBY said:
Ever since this crap with Ukraine started, I've believed Snowden was involved in giving up NATO secrets.
I don't like Rogers when he is political, such as his marbles to chess comment.
But when a House Chair, the highest meaninful office in the House on a specific subject speaks, I listen .
Click to expand...

There were no surprises in the Ukraine and your 'beliefs' are just speculation.

The House Chair, if fully informed, was complicit with the practices that Snowden considered unconstitutional and immoral. He has an interest in hiding that information. His opinion is not significant.
 
I'm glad Snowden exposed the corrupt US Government illegal activities.

On Dec. 16, in a lawsuit that could not have gone forward without the disclosures made possible by Snowden, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon described the NSA’s capabilities as “almost Orwellian” and said its bulk collection of U.S. domestic telephone records was probably unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

He named the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees.

“Dianne Feinstein elected me when she asked softball questions” in committee hearings, he said. “Mike Rogers elected me when he kept these programs hidden. . . . The FISA court elected me when they decided to legislate from the bench on things that were far beyond the mandate of what that court was ever intended to do. The system failed comprehensively, and each level of oversight, each level of responsibility that should have addressed this
Click to expand...

Beginning in October 2012, he said, he brought his misgivings to two superiors in the NSA’s Technology Directorate and two more in the NSA Threat Operations Center’s regional base in Hawaii. For each of them, and 15 other co-workers, Snowden said he opened a data query tool called BOUNDLESSINFORMANT, which used color-coded “heat maps” to depict the volume of data ingested by NSA taps.

His colleagues were often “astonished to learn we are collecting more in the United States on Americans than we are on Russians in Russia,” he said. Many of them were troubled, he said, and several said they did not want to know any more.
Click to expand...

Each year, NSA systems collected hundreds of millions of e-mail address books, hundreds of billions of cellphone location records and trillions of domestic call logs.

Most of that data, by definition and intent, belonged to ordinary people suspected of nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
They are seperate issues. Go back and read my premise in my first post. It is that he is a criminal. He broke the law. Thinking you have a good excuse does not change that. Every one has a good excuse for why they break the law. If we ignore the law, if we do not enforce it when not convenient, the end result is very negative.
Click to expand...

The end result of enough people refusing to obey bad laws is those laws being repealed or ignored.

sit-in.jpg

"In February 1960, college students (from left) Joseph McNeil, Franklin McCain, Billy Smith and Clarence Henderson began a sit in protest at the whites-only lunch counter at a Woolworth’s in Greensboro, N.C"
http://museumofuncutfunk.com/2013/08/23/food-and-the-civil-rights-movement/

800px-Partial_View_of_Hippie_Hill_in_San_Francisco-300x225.jpg

420 event
 
Last edited:
Here's a list of known traitors.

John Adams
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Ben Franklin





He's in good company.

When your country engages in unconscionable acts, what's a man of conscience to do?
 
joG said:
The damage done was not necessary and has harmed the country substantially. Had he published only such information for instance, that showed breeches of US citizens rights and broke US law, it would have still been doubtful, but it could have been argued that it was justified. As it stands, he has committed a crime that must be so harshly punished that nobody does it again. .
Click to expand...

Where is the harm? Where is the evidence that he released anything that wasn't evidence of wrong doing?

"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest. There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Snowden
 
joG said:
......Selective application of the law is one of the worst things a society can have happen.
Click to expand...

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". Nuremberg Principals

"This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war."
Wikipedia
 
joG said:
Why do you avoid the actual problematic behind this issue polemics and not listen to what is actually written? It also seems that you refuse to differentiate between the implications of the various crimes committed. It is not the same crime to publish information on legitimate international spy activity and method as that of infringement on citizens' rights domestically. Had he stuck to the latter, the questions would be quite different and the discussion of legitimacy of his actions would be less absurd.
Click to expand...

People in the USA are not the only ones who have human rights. Many of us consider it unethical to spy on anyone, even people who aren't USA citizens, without reasonable suspicion and due process.
 
Lovebug said:
Not to mention the fact that, since he so treasures our rights, why then run to where they have very little regard for rights?
Click to expand...

When you're running away from people out to kill you or out to throw you in prison for the rest of your life you don't really much care if where you end up is a place that has much regard for rights or not. At that point, all you're after is protection from those individuals out to do you harm.
 
It's one thing to release domestic information to prove a point. It's another to release our overseas intel and put many Americans in danger. He's a traitor. I wouldn't have a problem with him as long as he only released domestic stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom