Thread: Edward Snowden; traitor or hero ?

Pardon me if this subject has been done recently. Is whistle-blowing heroic or cowardly, noble or criminal ? What are your concerns about this whole affair ?

Russian tool, apparently.

Isn't he there just to avoid extradition ? Why does that make him a tool ?

Intentions honourable. If governments were more honest and responsible such actions would be unnecessary. Likely he has gone too far and is now being manipulated by the Russians, but the intent was valid. Even if we choose to condemn him we should reserve more condemnation for some of the acts exposed by his actions.

Hes a Hero.

Have you heard of insider trading? Well take that and put it in this situation with Snowden. He was doing insider investigating of many things to wit many had no relevance but some did. I would think he could have just gotten the same exposure if he would have been a whistle blower about some of the things that were going on where he worked.

I see this topic has been addressed pretty well last summer. I should have known. I was thinking of Daniel Ellsberg and the pentagon papers back in '71. Wondering if parallels would be made. To reveal state secrets is a serious
business. Concealing some secrets from the public in a free society is at least as troubling to notions of freedom as was Snowden's acts. I'm not really sure how to regard this whole affair.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Intentions honourable. If governments were more honest and responsible such actions would be unnecessary. Likely he has gone too far and is now being manipulated by the Russians, but the intent was valid. Even if we choose to condemn him we should reserve more condemnation for some of the acts exposed by his actions.

I actually feel pretty sorry for Snowden. I think he got used to boost Greenwald's career. I have to tell you that I have heard only one thing that I did not already know, and I don't work in the security apparatus of the US nor have I ever. Meanwhile every piece Greenwald wrote has a disclaimer in paragraph fifteen. Completely disgusting.

The one thing I heard that was new was they listened to world leaders, and let this fool-- a pretty junior guy-- find out about it.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Have you heard of insider trading? Well take that and put it in this situation with Snowden. He was doing insider investigating of many things to wit many had no relevance but some did. I would think he could have just gotten the same exposure if he would have been a whistle blower about some of the things that were going on where he worked.

He'd probably have gotten a lot more done, actually.

This is close to how I feel about Snowden's acts. The Russians are surely exploiting him, nothing surprising about that. But that says little about Snowden's purpose, which, indeed, may have been honorable. Brave, even. I have heard Senators speak treason, or something like it. Just how transparent IS our government and how transparent do we need it to be ? It seems the citizen's deeds are more transparent than our government's. This ought not be so. The "right to privacy" in the 4th Bill of Rights is vanished. Replaced by a government which knows more about me than I, myself, can remember. Our rights as citizens of a nation melt away and we hardly notice.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

This is close to how I feel about Snowden's acts. The Russians are surely exploiting him, nothing surprising about that. But that says little about Snowden's purpose, which, indeed, may have been honorable. Brave, even. I have heard Senators speak treason, or something like it. Just how transparent IS our government and how transparent do we need it to be ? It seems the citizen's deeds are more transparent than our government's. This ought not be so. The "right to privacy" in the 4th Bill of Rights is vanished. Replaced by a government which knows more about me than I, myself, can remember. Our rights as citizens of a nation melt away and we hardly notice.

Dammed if he does, and dammed if he does not, somebody has to take up for the nation, who else can do that sort of thing when they do not have access to information as he did?

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment." - JFK

So shall we allow reporters broadcasting live to accompany the police when they set an ambush for the bank robbers, ice?

Should we tell Putin what kind of nastiness we're going to dream up to make his occupation of the Crimea unpleasant?

Do you recommend telling al Qaeda who we've localized and are waiting for a chance to drone?

Let's get real, operational security isn't repugnant. It's obvious. And if you call it "repugnant" you're obviously against free governments protecting their people. Review is one thing. Knowing in advance is entirely another.

bank robbers are insignificant, they do not have the means to destroy all life on earth in a nuclear apocalypse, do not release US military strains of anthrax to selected members of congress and of the media, cant remotely drone kill someone "labeled" a terrorist without an open proceeding and judgement, cant send someone to prison or to be tortured in a secret prison, I dont give a crap if the price for transparency was unnecessary "live"coverage of a bank robber, but this said you could have next day release of information it doesnt need to be live.

nasty things to putin nonsense. You should drop the imperialist crap with the everywherei the world is the playgound of US military/terrorism/coup detat, etc, theres no point in concealing nasty crap to do to other countrys , you can be open about it.

al queda, is mostly a US fabrication from the leftovers of the brilliant "hey, lets create islamic extremists as a clever secret nasty trick to fight the Russians" coming back to bite your ass.

And because some are morally bankrupt (without realizing it) I have to point out that strolling around the world shooting missiles from drones left and right is disgusting inhuman/subhuman/neanderthal imperialist militarist immoral criminal. Thats as if China was lobbing icbm missile in new york city saying they are targeting chinese mafia triad members, oops a wedding, sorry its just collateral damage. its a miss, launch another one Chang, well eventually hit our target.

secrecy is indeed repugnant, but the obscurantist militarist attitudes are even more repugnant.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

bank robbers are insignificant,

It's an example, and one you can't find an answer to.

Not to mention, we might negotiate a trade agreement with one partner after another has abrogated a previous agreement; we'd prefer to present this as a fait accompli to the cheater. Is this "evil?"

We need to keep track of nuclear weapons. Should we just trust public channels or keep a covert channel open to double-check?

These are all legitimate concerns of free governments that do not need to be aired in public. To pretend they should be is idiotic, not to mention self-abnegating in a fashion most US citizens would reject if asked.

. banter removed

No, no, and no. But we Should allow the reporters and cameras to show caskets returning from a war we should not have waged. State secrets must be kept, of course. No one expects or wants FULL DISCLOSURE of top-secret intelligence- gathering. It was...embarrassing timing, the release of our spying on our Allies, just before Obama's meeting with Merkel and other NATO allies, though all nations do it. I wouldn't give Putin anything except a shirt to put on, why would you think I would? And the use of drones is questionable. Effective ? yes, but it has ethical problems. So do military occupations. I am real, I don't need to 'get there'.
Would you like every aspect or behavior of your life tracked, by anyone ? I'm talking about government responsibility toward the people. Police can tape you, but if you try taping them, see what happens.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

So shall we allow reporters broadcasting live to accompany the police when they set an ambush for the bank robbers, ice?

Should we tell Putin what kind of nastiness we're going to dream up to make his occupation of the Crimea unpleasant?

Do you recommend telling al Qaeda who we've localized and are waiting for a chance to drone?

Let's get real, operational security isn't repugnant. It's obvious. And if you call it "repugnant" you're obviously against free governments protecting their people. Review is one thing. Knowing in advance is entirely another.

Not sure what makes him a hero or a traitor. All he did was confirm all that we knew was going on/allowed under the patriot act

Right. I don't know how to regard the guy. John Brown comes to mind, for some reason. People who do dis-honorable things in support of an honorable goal.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

But we Should allow the reporters and cameras to show caskets returning from a war we should not have waged.

I was in favor of it. Obama never opposed it and in fact opened it up. I honor them all, Iraq or Afghanistan, but I blame every one from Iraq on Bush 43.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

State secrets must be kept, of course. No one expects or wants FULL DISCLOSURE of top-secret intelligence- gathering.

Actually thats what icewendigo was advocating. It's exactly what he wants. Go read his posts.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

It was...embarrassing timing, the release of our spying on our Allies, just before Obama's meeting with Merkel and other NATO allies, though all nations do it. I wouldn't give Putin anything except a shirt to put on, why would you think I would?

I think there was no necessity for it if Snowden had followed the rules and become a real whistleblower instead of letting Greenwald play him. Greenwald got rich, Snowden and the NSA got screwed.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

And the use of drones is questionable. Effective ? yes, but it has ethical problems. So do military occupations. I am real, I don't need to 'get there'.

I have made posts where you might discuss this. This post is about Snowden, who has little or nothing to do with drones. Please feel free to meet me and dispute drones on my drone thread on this forum.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Would you like every aspect or behavior of your life tracked, by anyone ? I'm talking about government responsibility toward the people. Police can tape you, but if you try taping them, see what happens.

Actually I do. I have a video camera in my car's front and will turn it on should I ever have occasion. They will not find out until later. If fhey're wise that won't be uncomfortable for them.

It records remotely. Just like the one over my front door.

"Not to mention, we might negotiate a trade agreement with one partner after another has abrogated a previous agreement; we'd prefer to present this as a*fait accompli*to the cheater. Is this "evil?"

I dont understand can you rephrase or elaborate?

nukes: if you guys worship the holy fallout like in the planet of the apes sequel, then make sure its secure, don't assume evil doers dont know where they are and take the required protection

plus you are not applying nuance such as treating nominative information (coordinates,passwords, names) differently -from *What* is being done (actions, methods, etc )(Stylus is not as easy as thought )

You're just randomly changing the subject, ice. Sorry, not buying any. Good luck.

"Wise" Police. That's funny. You're smart to have one in your car. In my city a bystander who had begun recording the arrest of someone unconnected to the him, was chased into his home by Police and had that phone taken. Others were able to record that chase and what had proceeded it; A pretty savage beating of a young black guy who seemed not to be resisting one bit. 8 cops were indicted.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Originally Posted by umbradiago

But we Should allow the reporters and cameras to show caskets returning from a war we should not have waged.

I was in favor of it. Obama never opposed it and in fact opened it up. I honor them all, Iraq or Afghanistan, but I blame every one from Iraq on Bush 43.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

State secrets must be kept, of course. No one expects or wants FULL DISCLOSURE of top-secret intelligence- gathering.

Actually thats what icewendigo was advocating. It's exactly what he wants. Go read his posts. I'll decline your offer on drones; I little-understand them but concern remains whether we can justify their use. Apparently you can. I don't believe in killing except when put into immediate and imminent danger. I know you advocated for showing war's effects. Your point about the way in which Snowden is blew the whistle is wide open. Other than poking a hole in the dike, the rest was done by the weight of all that hidden 'water'.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

It was...embarrassing timing, the release of our spying on our Allies, just before Obama's meeting with Merkel and other NATO allies, though all nations do it. I wouldn't give Putin anything except a shirt to put on, why would you think I would?

I think there was no necessity for it if Snowden had followed the rules and become a real whistleblower instead of letting Greenwald play him. Greenwald got rich, Snowden and the NSA got screwed.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

And the use of drones is questionable. Effective ? yes, but it has ethical problems. So do military occupations. I am real, I don't need to 'get there'.

I have made posts where you might discuss this. This post is about Snowden, who has little or nothing to do with drones. Please feel free to meet me and dispute drones on my drone thread on this forum.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

Would you like every aspect or behavior of your life tracked, by anyone ? I'm talking about government responsibility toward the people. Police can tape you, but if you try taping them, see what happens.

Actually I do. I have a video camera in my car's front and will turn it on should I ever have occasion. They will not find out until later. If fhey're wise that won't be uncomfortable for them.

It records remotely. Just like the one over my front door.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment." - JFK

Right. That would be the same JFK who reached a secret agreement with Khrushchev to withdraw IRBMs from Turkey and Italy in exchange for the Soviets removing the missiles from Cuba.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

"Wise" Police. That's funny. You're smart to have one in your car. In my city a bystander who had begun recording the arrest of someone unconnected to the him, was chased into his home by Police and had that phone taken. Others were able to record that chase and what had proceeded it; A pretty savage beating of a young black guy who seemed not to be resisting one bit. 8 cops were indicted.

Yikes! that's terrible! Those 8 cops had families!! <------Obviously sarcasm! (for schnieb!)

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by umbradiago

"Wise" Police. That's funny. You're smart to have one in your car. In my city a bystander who had begun recording the arrest of someone unconnected to the him, was chased into his home by Police and had that phone taken. Others were able to record that chase and what had proceeded it; A pretty savage beating of a young black guy who seemed not to be resisting one bit. 8 cops were indicted.

Yikes! that's terrible! Those 8 cops had families!! <------Obviously sarcasm! (for schnieb!)

In another incident 2 years ago, a local police cruiser spotted the flash of a lighter in a car parked in a remote area near a lakeside. The police shut-off their lights and rolled up to the rear of the parked car, hit the spotlight and started shouting demands at the cars three occupants. They were three 17 year old girls from a parochial high school, as it turns out, smoking weed. The driver panicked and fled away whereupon these two officers, and two others nearby, started shooting at the girl's car, firing a total of 27 rounds in the direction of that car, hitting it 9 times. The girls were unhurt and were taken into custody and charged with possession of a very small amount of weed.
This caused barely a ripple in public protest because people are too goddamned afraid to criticize police over-reach for fear they'll be next. Those cops had no idea who was doing what that night, but emptied their service weapons before finding out. This is appalling.

Originally Posted by umbradiago

In another incident 2 years ago, a local police cruiser spotted the flash of a lighter in a car parked in a remote area near a lakeside. The police shut-off their lights and rolled up to the rear of the parked car, hit the spotlight and started shouting demands at the cars three occupants. They were three 17 year old girls from a parochial high school, as it turns out, smoking weed. The driver panicked and fled away whereupon these two officers, and two others nearby, started shooting at the girl's car, firing a total of 27 rounds in the direction of that car, hitting it 9 times. The girls were unhurt and were taken into custody and charged with possession of a very small amount of weed.
This caused barely a ripple in public protest because people are too goddamned afraid to criticize police over-reach for fear they'll be next. Those cops had no idea who was doing what that night, but emptied their service weapons before finding out. This is appalling.

umbradiago, can you provide a link to this story?

Originally Posted by danhanegan

Originally Posted by umbradiago

In another incident 2 years ago, a local police cruiser spotted the flash of a lighter in a car parked in a remote area near a lakeside. The police shut-off their lights and rolled up to the rear of the parked car, hit the spotlight and started shouting demands at the cars three occupants. They were three 17 year old girls from a parochial high school, as it turns out, smoking weed. The driver panicked and fled away whereupon these two officers, and two others nearby, started shooting at the girl's car, firing a total of 27 rounds in the direction of that car, hitting it 9 times. The girls were unhurt and were taken into custody and charged with possession of a very small amount of weed.
This caused barely a ripple in public protest because people are too goddamned afraid to criticize police over-reach for fear they'll be next. Those cops had no idea who was doing what that night, but emptied their service weapons before finding out. This is appalling.

umbradiago, can you provide a link to this story?

Sorry, not any longer. It was reported in The Omaha World-Herald a couple of years ago and touched-off a s debate in "Letters to the Editor" section of the W.H. (which is largely owned by Warren Buffet). I'll try to find a link.

I think the question is, are his actions detrimental to our security? If yes it was a wreckless decision, if no then what the hell are we paying for?

Originally Posted by Trivium

I think the question is, are his actions detrimental to our security? If yes it was a wreckless decision, if no then what the hell are we paying for?

Are the American intelligence agencies detrimental to our freedom ? We already know they're detrimental to other's. Ask Angela Merkel.

From what I have read about Snowdon . I do not think he is a traitor. He has shown his people and the rest of the world how the American secret service has been breaking privacy law after privacy law. Not only Americas but also the U.k. He did that for us. As a warning to us all about how our government gathers information. Also I feel his leak is not so much about today , its about tomorrow. Its about the protection of our children's rights. If there are no laws to defend against government invasions of privacy because you automatically become a traitor to your people if you try to hold them to account.Its not justice, its not freedom. Snowdon in my eyes pointed out that Americas surveillance programs went far beyond what they were meant to do. The American secret service was breaking its own countries laws. To say they did that to protect innocent Americans doesn't add up. Snowdon should be respected by Americans for showing you all how low your government will go. To show how its one thing to protect the governments privacy but not yours.

Originally Posted by jonio

From what I have read about Snowdon . I do not think he is a traitor. He has shown his people and the rest of the world how the American secret service has been breaking privacy law after privacy law. Not only Americas but also the U.k. He did that for us. As a warning to us all about how our government gathers information. Also he I feel his leak is not so much about today , its about tomorrow. Its about the protection of our children's rights. If there are no laws to defend against government invasions of privacy because you automatically become a traitor to your people if you try to hold them to account.Its not justice, its not freedom. Snowdon in my eyes pointed out that Americas surveillance programs went far beyond what they were meant to do. The American secret service was breaking its own countries laws. To say they did that to protect innocent Americans doesn't add up. Snowdon should be respected by Americans for showing you all how low your government will go. To show how its one thing to protect the governments privacy but not yours.

I would go with you on your thinking , however the nation is quite divided on that issue. Why do people believe this is not about tomorrow? it would be very logical to think that this man is a man of principles with love for his people. It would not far fetched to think he is either a fool or a mad man to expose himself to such dangers for his country he hates so much. I believe some of the American people are not realizing that people like Snowdon is a light shining into their lives. What is the meaning of freedom if you are constantly followed around and your actions and movements are constantly monitored, what for?

My view it is a Psy op!
The timing and all things happening at the time was a tad strange.

Originally Posted by jonio

He has shown his people and the rest of the world how the American secret service has been breaking privacy law after privacy law.

Not really. He just reminded everybody that that is what the gov is allowed to do under the patriot act.
Why is everyone so outraged? This isn't new. Everybody voted for a police state in 2004 (and called it being "patriotic") and now this snowden guy comes along and shows everybody what they bought with their vote and everyone is outraged??!? Why are people mad and why is the government angry? Everybody knew it was going on. everybody voted for it. WTF?
nothing to see here folks move along.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by jonio

He has shown his people and the rest of the world how the American secret service has been breaking privacy law after privacy law.

Not really. He just reminded everybody that that is what the gov is allowed to do under the patriot act.
Why is everyone so outraged? This isn't new. Everybody voted for a police state in 2004 (and called it being "patriotic") and now this snowden guy comes along and shows everybody what they bought with their vote and everyone is outraged??!? Why are people mad and why is the government angry? Everybody knew it was going on. everybody voted for it. WTF?
nothing to see here folks move along.

Tell it Grmp.

http://www.dailytech.com/Audit+NSA+A...ticle33186.htm



I know the n.s.a admitted they broke the law but they said they kinda had to or they mistakenly broke the law. The N.s.a can find support to say they had to to protect innocent Americans but how far do they have to go? The U.k it seems was working in tandem with the N.s.a. Spying on our allies . Its one thing to protect us but to create us more enemies by spying on allies? They seemed to be spying on everyone because they could. They even seemed to be acting without even Congress or the senate knowing what they were up to or at least the extent of it. I think Snowdon did us a great favour by at least exposing the uncrontrolled ( to many ) and illegal way in which they work. As I said in my earlier post . Its not about today..its about tomorrow. Its about the way future governments could use the N.s.a to help them cement power, find out about future politicians, their secrets....Look at the lengths Republicans and democrats go to mess up your economy to fight for position. Say the N.s.a chief came from a tea party background? Snowdon showed his fellow Americans how it is now and how unchecked it could get much worse. George Orwell gave us a good enough warning on how it could all turn out. Snowdon attacking the n.s.a program as he has...was a very good thing to do for our kids in the future. He showed you that he is a real American who believes in his/yours personal freedoms. He may have gone to far but to be honest if I found out what he did , I would have leaked it. China spys on their own citizens and they do it openly. America is always attacking the freedoms ( they say ) , china suppresses of its people. The N.s.a seems not so different. I don't know that much about bushes patriot act apart from it got alot of critism. I will research but from the uproar the N.s.a has caused , I am not sure the patriot act covered all the spying thats gone on. If the law has been broken then they should be punished like you or I would.

An amusing aspect of this thread is that two of the main contributors have been silenced.

Originally Posted by JonG

An amusing aspect of this thread is that two of the main contributors have been silenced.

Not with a 9mm?

I'm a big fan. It's funny to me that a lot of his detractors are people who claim to be for smaller government.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I'm a big fan. It's funny to me that a lot of his detractors are people who claim to be for smaller government.

Why?

Smaller government leds itself into simple black and white laws such as not revealing classified information. Most against him are more pointing out what he did rather than the implications of the programs he uncovered.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I'm a big fan. It's funny to me that a lot of his detractors are people who claim to be for smaller government.

Smaller government puts a lot of the power in a fewer peoples' hands... very dangerous.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I'm a big fan. It's funny to me that a lot of his detractors are people who claim to be for smaller government.

Smaller government puts a lot of the power in a fewer peoples' hands... very dangerous.

Not all the time.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I'm a big fan. It's funny to me that a lot of his detractors are people who claim to be for smaller government.

Smaller government puts a lot of the power in a fewer peoples' hands... very dangerous.

Not all the time.

if you say so.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by SowZ37

I'm a big fan. It's funny to me that a lot of his detractors are people who claim to be for smaller government.

Why?

Smaller government leds itself into simple black and white laws such as not revealing classified information. Most against him are more pointing out what he did rather than the implications of the programs he uncovered.

That's not a simple black and white law.

I like to hope that if the US government ever truly betrays the American people, that the people in government will reveal it rather than be complicit. The actions of the NSA were/are kind of borderline. Not outright betrayal but certainly pushing that limit, and revealing it to the American people is probably the only way anything would have been done to put a stop to it, or even to prevent it from getting worse.

You don't want the NSA going around blackmailing senators just because its own employees are too afraid to break laws that say they're not supposed to put a stop to it.

Gotta figure, the first thing a renegade government is going to do is make it illegal to stop it from going renegade.

The traitor exposed the underbelly of this country. He has given our secrets to other nations. I served this country, I am sure if I saw things I percieved as wrong, I had limited knowledge of all which is at stake. Even if one was sure that the information, they had knowledge of, was determental to this country, there are plenty in the second party that would love to use it politically, hence keeping it in house. Snowden is a traitor and deserves the firing squad.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

...He has given our secrets to other nations. ...Snowden is a traitor and deserves the firing squad.

Hardly on both accounts.
If the government said it was legal for the government to slaughter puppies and somebody came along and informed the public that "hey, they really are slaughtering puppies." that person has done nothing wrong. they are guilty only of reminding everyone it's still legal to slaughter puppies... Snowden may as well have stood up and said the government is able to tax your paycheck. No traitor, no firing squad. just some dude pissed off with a democratic president.

Originally Posted by kojax

That's not a simple black and white law.

It is that simple. He signed numerous contracts, non-disclosure agreements to the effect that he would not reveal classified information; classified are strictly marked and categorized (I did the same many times while in the military). He willfully broke those agreements, his contract and violated the law. Hero or not he is guilty of those crimes. It's only a question of whether his penalty should be reduced for the little good he did by going outside the system that by all appearances he didn't even try to use to remedy his concerns.

--
All that being said, and as I expressed earlier, I have many concerns about the degree of information collected, the NSA rubber stamp court who's procedures are hidden and lack of oversight by the Senate.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

That's not a simple black and white law.

It is that simple. He signed numerous contracts, non-disclosure agreements to the effect that he would not reveal classified information; classified are strictly marked and categorized (I did the same many times while in the military). He willfully broke those agreements, his contract and violated the law. Hero or not he is guilty of those crimes. It's only a question of whether his penalty should be reduced for the little good he did by going outside the system that by all appearances he didn't even try to use to remedy his concerns.

--
All that being said, and as I expressed earlier, I have many concerns about the degree of information collected, the NSA rubber stamp court who's procedures are hidden and lack of oversight by the Senate.

I'm pretty sure that a lawyer could successfully argue that those contracts he signed were not legally binding based what was going on. It's kinda like signing yourself into slavery. pen your name to it all you want, it's not a legal contract.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

The traitor exposed the underbelly of this country. He has given our secrets to other nations. I served this country, I am sure if I saw things I percieved as wrong, I had limited knowledge of all which is at stake. Even if one was sure that the information, they had knowledge of, was determental to this country, there are plenty in the second party that would love to use it politically, hence keeping it in house. Snowden is a traitor and deserves the firing squad.

The problem I find is that by all accounts this went on beyond what both parties new. Republicans and Democrats. It seems the N.s.a was acting on its own advice. The Iraq war was made on absolutely distorted information, shaped by Bush and Blair speeches. Many American and British soldiers died because of it. Was anyone ever held to account? Gross neglect is what our fallen soldiers deserve. Their lives are worth far more than to be used by inept intelligence officers and politicians. By all accounts on how far the N.s.a programs program went it seems , everyone was a suspect. Spying on Germans, Brazillians and anyone they can is way beyond protecting Americans and seems to be more important to business men and politicians than it is to make America safe. Also why should we put our faith in politicians to sort it out for themselves? It seems that they are the ones who benifit from spying on everyone. We should be spying on them. They are the ones who seem to be unaccountable for their actions. It is one thing to say they are doing it to protect Americans , if it is proven not to protect Americans , that it goes way beyond protecting Americans , then in my eyes they have purposely broke their own rules to suit government or their heads of office. They should be charged with being the traitor. Not Snowdon. He was exposing to the American people and the western world what he saw as complete abuse of a system which results in personal freedoms being needlessly abused. As I see it, if Snowdon is charged with being a traitor.....all those who knowingly abused their positions to gather info on us all should be charged also. Someone gave the go ahead. We are not children. A democracy dictates how far its politicians can go. In this incident it seems the N.s.a doesn't have to answer to anyone. The American government doesn't seem to be too interested in the people they serve at the moment. Look at the state of pushing your country to a default for political vengeance. We shouldn't need Snowdons to expose their criminal acts ( whatever excuses they give) , they should be accountable to the same laws as us. Is America the land of the free? Does it believe in the personal freedoms of its people? In 2014 , I don't think so.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I'm pretty sure that a lawyer could successfully argue that those contracts he signed were not legally binding based what was going on. It's kinda like signing yourself into slavery. pen your name to it all you want, it's not a legal contract.

And I'm pretty sure you are wrong and don't have a clue based on years of dealing with classified materials.

He'll be lucky to avoid the death penalty after a courtroom or at the impact sight of a drone strike.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I'm pretty sure that a lawyer could successfully argue that those contracts he signed were not legally binding based what was going on. It's kinda like signing yourself into slavery. pen your name to it all you want, it's not a legal contract.

And I'm pretty sure you are wrong and don't have a clue based on years of dealing with classified materials.He'll be lucky to avoid the death penalty after a courtroom or at the impact sight of a drone strike.

Exactly what is wrong with the system. I am sure Snowdon would have used other channels if he felt there were options. All that would have happened if he had questioned his superiors was its all in the interest of security and not for a lower ranking officer to question. The debate about how this security can effect our lives would still not be known. Democracy needs whistle blowers. Otherwise you'll end up another dictatorship...Who holds the N.s.a to account if your a traitor to disagree. The military do not have the right to infiltrate my personal info , not without my knowledge. I didn't agree to this. What right do they have?

What he did has nothing to do with whistle blowing--that only applies when someone reveals laws are being broken. That doesn't' appear to be the case in this event. The only one law breaking is him.

It doesn't matter what he "felt." It doesn't appear he tried anything: where are the letters to his supervisors? His contract representative? The oversight community? His congressmen? The president? Why did he take the stuff with him?

There is absolutely no excuse for what he did or how he did it.

It seems like a bit out of Catch 22 to me.

hero ... he revealed laws that were made in secret, not known to the public but used against the public. and free bradley manning.

duty,honor,courage.....just words

sadly most ppl fulfill their duty to receive honor now, courage is so stone age.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

I'm pretty sure that a lawyer could successfully argue that those contracts he signed were not legally binding based what was going on. It's kinda like signing yourself into slavery. pen your name to it all you want, it's not a legal contract.

And I'm pretty sure you are wrong and don't have a clue based on years of dealing with classified materials.

He'll be lucky to avoid the death penalty after a courtroom or at the impact sight of a drone strike.

Even if you are right, where does contract take priority over peoples rights?

kinda funny that obama,being the president, changed the 'secret law' after it went public. since when is a secret service operation national law?

Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end - The Washington Post

There is plenty of info out there to say they have acted illegally. Way beyond protecting Americans. This is my point. If Snowdon is a traitor , then what about all those who use tax payers money to act outside the law? If the N.s.a has been acting illegally then Snowdon has done nothing more than expose a crime. It seems the N.s.a, C.I.A of America shouts traitor , but are the ones who are acting in our name illegally. I ask again....who's the traitor? Snowdon or the N.s.a ? Are we all suspected traitors ? Is this why they hack our phone calls, internet ?

Originally Posted by jonio

Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end - The Washington Post

There is plenty of info out there to say they have acted illegally. Way beyond protecting Americans. This is my point. If Snowdon is a traitor , then what about all those who use tax payers money to act outside the law? If the N.s.a has been acting illegally then Snowdon has done nothing more than expose a crime. It seems the N.s.a, C.I.A of America shouts traitor , but are the ones who are acting in our name illegally. I ask again....who's the traitor? Snowdon or the N.s.a ? Are we all suspected traitors ? Is this why they hack our phone calls, internet ?

^that, if watergate happened today, you would dump the journalists it seems.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

What he did has nothing to do with whistle blowing--that only applies when someone reveals laws are being broken. That doesn't' appear to be the case in this event. The only one law breaking is him.

This is really what comes down to. If, in fact, the NSA was not breaking the law (as I have cited under the patriot act earlier in this thread) he doesn't have a leg to stand on. However, if the law was broken by the NSA I believe his contracts are null and void, if not, then all criminals have to do is create contracts to get out of their illegal activity... find some patsy who agrees to go to jail for their crimes if the perpetrators are actually caught and found guilty.

"Your honor, I have here a signed and notarized contract from my associate that says he will serve my sentence. You should throw the book at him in the interest of justice. Good day your honor."

Originally Posted by curious mind

kinda funny that obama,being the president, changed the 'secret law' after it went public. since when is a secret service operation national law?

That is upsetting and quite curious coming out of a Democratic administration. I can't believe Obama would sign a law that punishes whistle blowers. sad day.

Originally Posted by jonio

Independent review board says NSA phone data program is illegal and should end - The Washington Post

There is plenty of info out there to say they have acted illegally. Way beyond protecting Americans. This is my point. If Snowdon is a traitor...

Makes him a traitor to criminals... that's an ok light to be in.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It doesn't matter what he "felt." It doesn't appear he tried anything: where are the letters to his supervisors? His contract representative? The oversight community? His congressmen? The president? Why did he take the stuff with him?

That would still breaking the contracts by talking to any of those people. He took the information with him so it couldn't be scrubbed.

Was tapping the phone calls of Merkle defending Americans or risking destroying a strong relationships that ends up making Americans less safe? I am happy an American blew the whistle.If the Germans had found out for themsleves it would have been much worse. .Who does the N.s.a think it is? After all its Americans money that funds them. If anything the heads of the N.s.a and Snowdon should be put on trial in civilian courts. It is us they should all answer to. Military courts are internal , this is about their actions against us. The people should try them all. In normal courts we all have to answer to. How can anyone be proved of anything if we normal citizens are left to the judgements of a closed biased military court? No military police seemed to investigate the N.s.a themselves before Snowdon. Its madness to think we could hear about this secret society unless we have a whistle blower.

I would like to ad......The whole Snowdon case has shown myself and the world that the American military has fudemental flaws in the way it monitors itself. Its not about Snowdon being a traitor , its about the N.s.a spying on anyone and everyone unchecked. Most of both Americas parties seemed as in the dark to the N.s.as work ethics as anyone else. Think of your kids future before you make judgements on Snowdon....The laws implemented now for security reasons could be applied to them. If your own parties start tapping each others phones then where's democracy? Where's politics heading? Snowdon at worse acted naviely but he is not a traitor. Those who blindly defend the N.s.as actions could turn about to be alot more dangerous to Americans than snowdon could ever be.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

What he did has nothing to do with whistle blowing--that only applies when someone reveals laws are being broken. That doesn't' appear to be the case in this event. The only one law breaking is him.

This is really what comes down to. If, in fact, the NSA was not breaking the law (as I have cited under the patriot act earlier in this thread) he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There's no indication any law has been broken. A lot of us have good reason to want to change the review processes but that's quite a bit different.

However, if the law was broken by the NSA I believe his contracts are null and void, if not, then all criminals have to do is create contracts to get out of their illegal activity... find some patsy who agrees to go to jail for their crimes if the perpetrators are actually caught and found guilty.

What he revealed is WAY beyond what he personally had any involvement -- it might have been an ego thing, but there's absolutely no doubt that he not only violated his contract, but numerous federal laws including treason.

The NSA won't be on trail....he will be.

Looking through these posts it seems to me that people of a military background seemed to be more angered about Snowdon than anyone else...have you ever asked yourself why that is ? Are you not trained to think inside the box? Not outside of it? Do you not feel that maybe all those years of training have helped shape your idea of what a traitor is? I feel that its the honest honorable soldiers of our nations armies who are betrayed the most . Not by Snowdon but by their superiors. Spying on friendly nations ruins the respect of America and its military. If they were just spying on Islamic terrorists , I would be supporting the N.s.a.....alas that's not just who they were spying on....it was whoever they felt like if they were a threat to Americans or not.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The NSA won't be on trail....he will be.

And that is probably one of the biggest problems with all of this... where is the oversight?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by kojax

That's not a simple black and white law.

It is that simple. He signed numerous contracts, non-disclosure agreements to the effect that he would not reveal classified information; classified are strictly marked and categorized (I did the same many times while in the military). He willfully broke those agreements, his contract and violated the law. Hero or not he is guilty of those crimes. It's only a question of whether his penalty should be reduced for the little good he did by going outside the system that by all appearances he didn't even try to use to remedy his concerns.

People who sign similar agreements in the private sector, and then turn state's evidence and testify against their employers are protected under whistleblower protection laws.

The difference here is that he worked for the government, and the higher authority he divulged his information to was not the government, but the people (who collectively are above the government.)

I've heard you discuss the concept of "rules vs. guidelines" in the past, and exposing government misdeeds against the people seems to me like the point where law has to be ignored in favor of guiding principles. A person should maintain any government secret that doesn't go against the government's primary mandate : which is serving the people and the constitution. The NSA failed to serve the constitution, and it was Snowden's duty to bring that to the attention of the people.

--
All that being said, and as I expressed earlier, I have many concerns about the degree of information collected, the NSA rubber stamp court who's procedures are hidden and lack of oversight by the Senate.

Which is another way of saying there was no mechanism by which the problem could reasonably have been redressed inside the system. Snowden took it outside the system because that is preferable to letting it go un-redressed.

You would have to be very naive to think that defending freedom is always going to be a legal thing to do.

Originally Posted by keeseguy

The traitor exposed the underbelly of this country. He has given our secrets to other nations. I served this country, I am sure if I saw things I percieved as wrong, I had limited knowledge of all which is at stake. Even if one was sure that the information, they had knowledge of, was determental to this country, there are plenty in the second party that would love to use it politically, hence keeping it in house. Snowden is a traitor and deserves the firing squad.

That's typical victim defending their oppressor talk.

Don't blame the NSA for embarrassing us. Blame the guy who exposed them?

Victim, victim, victim. I can't stand that kind of weakness of character. I see too many Americans going after the easier target, instead of the greater threat here. The NSA is hard to take down. Snowden himself is pretty easy. He's just one guy, and he barely has asylum, let alone the means to fight back.

The coward in all of us wants to take down the easy target, so we can feel like we achieved a resolution.

I think the question should be...what if Snowdon hadn't leaked what the N.s.a was upto? Would they be secretly gathering information until ??? Who if not for a whistle blower would stop them?

I can see through all this horse shit!

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

Dude's a hero.

Originally Posted by Realitarian

Dude's a hero.

The question is, what qualifies a hero? And the problem arises out of that, is it the peoples hero? His he a hero to the world? His he a hero to his ego? All sorts of hero's.

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

I guess the answer would be balance, I think it goes both ways, the balance does not have to be a equal balance in numbers.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

I guess the answer would be balance, I think it goes both ways, the balance does not have to be a equal balance in numbers.

kind of hard to have balance when the right wing media and all of their hangers-on scream socialism, communism and big government at the mere mention of a social program helping someone out.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

I guess the answer would be balance, I think it goes both ways, the balance does not have to be a equal balance in numbers.

kind of hard to have balance when the right wing media and all of their hangers-on scream socialism, communism and big government at the mere mention of a social program helping someone out.

I have no problem with any of those ideas, but much prefer the concept of a community of people willingly banding together based on common values. I'm not okay with a bunch of guys pointing guns and people and saying, "Okay. Here is how you are going to live your lives now because we have guns and decide these political border things."

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

I guess the answer would be balance, I think it goes both ways, the balance does not have to be a equal balance in numbers.

kind of hard to have balance when the right wing media and all of their hangers-on scream socialism, communism and big government at the mere mention of a social program helping someone out.

I have no problem with any of those ideas, but much prefer the concept of a community of people willingly banding together based on common values. I'm not okay with a bunch of guys pointing guns and people and saying, "Okay. Here is how you are going to live your lives now because we have guns and decide these political border things."

The left isn't typically known for their "might makes right" and "pointing of guns" stances.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

I guess the answer would be balance, I think it goes both ways, the balance does not have to be a equal balance in numbers.

kind of hard to have balance when the right wing media and all of their hangers-on scream socialism, communism and big government at the mere mention of a social program helping someone out.

I have no problem with any of those ideas, but much prefer the concept of a community of people willingly banding together based on common values. I'm not okay with a bunch of guys pointing guns and people and saying, "Okay. Here is how you are going to live your lives now because we have guns and decide these political border things."

The left isn't typically known for their "might makes right" and "pointing of guns" stances.

Both ends are pretty equally guilty of might makes right, because governments are inherently violent institutions and all laws are backed up by force theory. A law not backed up by the threat of force is meaningless. All laws have the caveat that, if you refuse to acknowledge/violate it, you will be taken away at gunpoint. And I find the lefts stance on guns themselves hypocritical since they would be using armed citizens to take away those guns. (As opposed to, say, Britain or Japan, where the police don't carry guns. Asking the citizens to disarm isn't quite as unreasonable in such a country.)

You shouldn't make a law for something that you aren't willing to enforce by shooting the perpetrator should they refuse to stop engaging in that act. Because that is implicit in every law. Since neither the left nor the right is better at limiting what areas of a persons life are fair game for laws, I consider both almost equally violent. The exception to this is that the Right is more likely to initiate wars, though the gap in warmongering from the right to the left isn't nearly as large as the left wants people to believe. Still, I do lean more liberal, (liberal in the American sense.)

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

The government serves as a check against the power of the oligarchs, who in turn are a check against the power of the government. Except sometimes they work together, and then things get difficult.

Putting people on welfare serves as a way to keep them consuming even when the oligarchs fail to provide them with good jobs. Providing jobs is the oligarchs' role in society, although they've been playing it very poorly for the last decade and a half. Allowing them to keep making profits while they fail at that role (or send the jobs abroad) is kind of self defeating. Makes you think maybe government and industry are cooperating?

Welfare closes the gap between jobs and income. But really its propping up industry. Why do that? And why pay for welfare out of income tax money instead of a high corporate tax? Because industries will leave the country? What's wrong with that? Not like they're doing any good here anyway. If the jobs they create are going to be in China, then maybe the company should move to China too.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

The government serves as a check against the power of the oligarchs, who in turn are a check against the power of the government. Except sometimes they work together, and then things get difficult.

Work together or have merged?

Originally Posted by kojax

Putting people on welfare serves as a way to keep them consuming even when the oligarchs fail to provide them with good jobs. Providing jobs is the oligarchs' role in society, although they've been playing it very poorly for the last decade and a half. Allowing them to keep making profits while they fail at that role (or send the jobs abroad) is kind of self defeating. Makes you think maybe government and industry are cooperating?

that is counter productive for the government though (if in in fact they are separate entities).

Originally Posted by kojax

Welfare closes the gap between jobs and income. But really its propping up industry. Why do that?

It's not doing one thing more than another. Industry needs no propping up. industry has made its money and is stable for generations to come.

Originally Posted by kojax

And why pay for welfare out of income tax money instead of a high corporate tax?

Because Corporations don't pay taxes. They'd rather pay the same amount of money to lawyers than give it back to the people in taxes.

Originally Posted by kojax

Because industries will leave the country? What's wrong with that? Not like they're doing any good here anyway.

They are providing services and when that service is gone so is our selection.

Originally Posted by kojax

If the jobs they create are going to be in China, then maybe the company should move to China too.

I can't say I disagree with any of what you've written here, but if corporations leave they take their money and their products with them.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Originally Posted by SowZ37

That's not what I mean when I say smaller government. I mean a more minarchistic government that has its fingers in far fewer pies. A government with very few responsibilities.

and you're sure everyone is on board with this meaning?
#2 if government is smaller in that respect how does it promote for the common welfare of its citizens when they are being crushed by business practices that are more tyrannical than the "big government?"

The government serves as a check against the power of the oligarchs, who in turn are a check against the power of the government. Except sometimes they work together, and then things get difficult.

Work together or have merged?

Originally Posted by kojax

Putting people on welfare serves as a way to keep them consuming even when the oligarchs fail to provide them with good jobs. Providing jobs is the oligarchs' role in society, although they've been playing it very poorly for the last decade and a half. Allowing them to keep making profits while they fail at that role (or send the jobs abroad) is kind of self defeating. Makes you think maybe government and industry are cooperating?

that is counter productive for the government though (if in in fact they are separate entities).

Originally Posted by kojax

Welfare closes the gap between jobs and income. But really its propping up industry. Why do that?

It's not doing one thing more than another. Industry needs no propping up. industry has made its money and is stable for generations to come.

Actually most corporations have less than zero net worth. Their debts outweigh their assets. They need constant income to keep making their payments on that debt.

If demand dries up, companies start going out of business left and right. It happened in the early part of the recession to quite a few of them pretty fast. Then the government stepped in and started debt spending to prop up the companies that were hit the worst, and to keep unemployment checks rolling in (extending benefits to longer than their proper durations in some cases.)

Originally Posted by kojax

And why pay for welfare out of income tax money instead of a high corporate tax?

Because Corporations don't pay taxes. They'd rather pay the same amount of money to lawyers than give it back to the people in taxes.

Originally Posted by kojax

Because industries will leave the country? What's wrong with that? Not like they're doing any good here anyway.

They are providing services and when that service is gone so is our selection.

They'll keep providing the services. They'll just be doing it from a base in another country.

That might have the effect of devaluing the US dollar, which is a good thing. When your currency devalues, you can sell your products abroad more easily, because it effectively makes all of your products cheaper.

The jobs already aren't here, so why keep the headquarters here? What do we gain by that?

Originally Posted by kojax

If the jobs they create are going to be in China, then maybe the company should move to China too.

I can't say I disagree with any of what you've written here, but if corporations leave they take their money and their products with them.

You mean they'll take their debts with them.

Also they'll stop being able to lobby our government as easily. Because once they're based in a foreign country they no longer have the right to claim the congressmen and senators are "their representatives" anymore.

Hero, honorable, noble. It would traitorous if he kept this information from the public. The government is supposed to serve the people, not spy on them.