Archive

Edward Snowden American hero or Government treason

  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1459257 wrote:thats the problem with your argument, what the government is doing isnt illegal.
    If what he said was true, it sure walks and talks like illegal search for the 21st century. Or, again, do you know something that nobody else does?
    Glory Days;1459257 wrote:whether Snowden personally likes it or not doesnt give him the protection to release that information without criminal punishment.
    So, here were his options then:

    (a) Go to his immediate superior, who he doesn't necessarily trust.
    (b) Go to the Inspector General, who has given up several NSA whistleblowers to the DOJ in the past.
    (c) Go to Congress, where any motion with potential goes to die ... as well as a place where there are probably plenty of people who are buddied-up with the NSA.
    (d) Go to the press and run for the rest of your life, because you'll be vilified.

    That fourth option hardly sounds like a sweet deal. Crime typically stems from a motive. Unless he's a masochist, I don't see the motive ... except that the other three are essentially self-defeating. The "proper channels" are laughable, because they ensure virtually no additional safety or protection for the whistle blower.

    That's aside from the fact that former whistle blowers are substantiating Snowden's claims.

    Bill Binney was even quoted on his efforts going through the "proper channels:"

    "We tried to stay for the better part of seven years inside the government trying to get the government to recognize the unconstitutional, illegal activity that they were doing and openly admit that and devise certain ways that would be constitutionally and legally acceptable to achieve the ends they were really after. And that just failed totally because no one in Congress or — we couldn’t get anybody in the courts, and certainly the Department of Justice and inspector general’s office didn’t pay any attention to it. And all of the efforts we made just produced no change whatsoever. All it did was continue to get worse and expand."

    Sounds like the proper channels are not channels at all.
    Glory Days;1459257 wrote:no crook would every get that job due to the background checks involved. obviously its not a perfect system as with this case.
    Given that we've had a PRESIDENT impeached for illegal surveillance, I'd submit that your assumption here doesn't have a leg to stand on.

    Moreover, your statement's assumption is that people who will do illicit things in power did the same illicit things while not in power.
  • BoatShoes
    Snowden on leaks in January 2009. Apparently this was his username in an internet relay chat that he frequented:
    < TheTrueHOOHA> HOLY SHIT

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?_r=1&hp

    < TheTrueHOOHA> WTF NYTIMES
    < TheTrueHOOHA> Are they TRYING to start a war?
    Jesus christ
    they're like wikileaks
    < User19> they're just reporting, dude.
    < TheTrueHOOHA> They're reporting classified shit
    < User19> shrugs
    < TheTrueHOOHA> about an unpopular country surrounded by enemies already engaged in a war
    and about our interactions with said country regarding planning sovereignity violations of another country
    you don't put that shit in the NEWSPAPER
    < User19> meh
    < TheTrueHOOHA> moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?
    < TheTrueHOOHA> those people should be shot in the balls.
    Kind of strange compared to some of his other rather ardent libertarian views that he posted about...
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1463257 wrote: Kind of strange compared to some of his other rather ardent libertarian views that he posted about...
    4 years ago - he could have had a sort of evolution. I also don't necessarily see a conflict between drawing the line on national security and reporting wrongdoing. As of this point, I don't believe he's committed treason or hurt our security, and I might argue he deserves a pardon.

    Although hearing that he took this job specifically to gather intel of wrongdoing makes things yet even more gray. That means disregarding everything else, at a minimum he probably broke several laws lying on security clearance checks. I'm not sure, with respect to that particular, that we can dismiss it as some sort of ends justifying the means.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1463257 wrote:Snowden on leaks in January 2009. Apparently this was his username in an internet relay chat that he frequented:



    Kind of strange compared to some of his other rather ardent libertarian views that he posted about...
    Saw this. Back in 2009, he said all this. Can't imagine that being in those shoes wouldn't give one pause about such an opinion.

    I'm not defending his character or even his past mentality -- merely his actions. I'm just saying I probably wouldn't have trusted the "proper channels" any more than he apparently does, but I would have known full well that my life as a free man was pretty much over if I did reveal anything.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1463269 wrote:4 years ago - he could have had a sort of evolution. I also don't necessarily see a conflict between drawing the line on national security and reporting wrongdoing. As of this point, I don't believe he's committed treason or hurt our security, and I might argue he deserves a pardon.

    Although hearing that he took this job specifically to gather intel of wrongdoing makes things yet even more gray. That means disregarding everything else, at a minimum he probably broke several laws lying on security clearance checks. I'm not sure, with respect to that particular, that we can dismiss it as some sort of ends justifying the means.
    I WOULD probably agree with this. I do think the ends were good, but there were probably better ways of going about it.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1462782 wrote: Does it not occur to you that these are plausible?
    No, it would be too obvious that was the reason he was killed, which would mean even more problems for Obama and everyone else to deal with.


    This seems moot unless you automatically assume that the only way they might go after someone is if it put American lives in danger. So I suppose I should ask: Why do you assume that?
    simple, rules of engagement. by killing him, who's life are they saving?


    How do you know some aren't? It's not like they're going to go to the Washington Post with it and give an account of what happened. You keeping tabs on all these spies and double agents?

    I'm starting to think you must work within the CIA or NSA, given how much you claim to know and/or assume about what they're doing.
    well, as we say, for every minute of excitement, there is an hour of paperwork. i cant imagine how much paper work is involved in assasinating someone! also, because i am not a conspiracy theorist. we have arrested several people over the years for spying. not only that, but its the 21st century and the world is a much smaller place, its hard to make someone dissappear without anyone knowing.


    Um ... he spends 23 hours a day in solitary in a maximum security federal prison. Pretty sure that's a good way to make someone "go away."
    i guess i feel any day alive is better than one dead.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1462796 wrote:If what he said was true, it sure walks and talks like illegal search for the 21st century. Or, again, do you know something that nobody else does?
    checks and balances. congress approved the laws/rules, a judges approved of what the NSA is doing. its legal.
  • Glory Days
    O-Trap;1463306 wrote:I WOULD probably agree with this. I do think the ends were good, but there were probably better ways of going about it.
    if you dont trust the proper channels, what ways would you have gone about it?
  • O-Trap
    Glory Days;1463579 wrote:No, it would be too obvious that was the reason he was killed, which would mean even more problems for Obama and everyone else to deal with.

    There are plenty of ways to make a death look random or accidental, particularly if you have someone who knows what a medical examiner looks for. No more problems.
    Glory Days;1463579 wrote:simple, rules of engagement. by killing him, who's life are they saving?

    Again, why do you assume that rules of engagement are all they care about? Why do you assume they wouldn't kill for less.

    No offense intended (I genuinely mean that), but I would probably prefer to err on the side of caution ... ie, not trusting someone to not come after me simply because I place nobody's life in danger.
    Glory Days;1463579 wrote:well, as we say, for every minute of excitement, there is an hour of paperwork. i cant imagine how much paper work is involved in assasinating someone! also, because i am not a conspiracy theorist. we have arrested several people over the years for spying. not only that, but its the 21st century and the world is a much smaller place, its hard to make someone dissappear without anyone knowing.
    Are you assuming everything is always done on the books? That there is such transparency?

    Moreover, I'd submit that it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to believe that illicit, under-the-table activities occur from time to time. You won't find me espousing the belief that the moon landing was faked, that JFK's assassination was something other than what was described in the news, or that 9/11 was an inside job. However, I'd suggest there is middle ground between being a conspiracy theorist and being naive. I would suggest that believing everything is done on the books (where that paperwork comes in) is naive.
    Glory Days;1463579 wrote:i guess i feel any day alive is better than one dead.
    Nobody is arguing that point. Not sure why you felt the need to bring it up. I was talking about making Hanssen go away. I really can't say I'd be inclined to be wrongfully imprisoned, even if my life was spared.
    Glory Days;1463580 wrote:checks and balances. congress approved the laws/rules, a judges approved of what the NSA is doing. its legal.

    The Fourth Amendment would suggest otherwise, as likely would the founders. If Congress passed a law allowing your wife to be raped by government officials, and a crooked judge approved it, would it be legal?
    Glory Days;1463581 wrote:if you dont trust the proper channels, what ways would you have gone about it?
    Probably the same way he did. Found a safe distance, and then told what I had to say to news outlets and the public.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1463303 wrote:... I'm just saying I probably wouldn't have trusted the "proper channels" any more than he apparently does, but I would have known full well that my life as a free man was pretty much over if I did reveal anything.
    Not trusting the proper channels doesn't exonerate acting illegally.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464607 wrote:Not trusting the proper channels doesn't exonerate acting illegally.
    Maybe it doesn't (I wouldn't say, either way). Perhaps, however, it should, particularly if a justifiable case can be made to bring the legitimacy of the "proper" channels into doubt (and I submit such a case can be made here).
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1464622 wrote:Maybe it doesn't (I wouldn't say, either way). Perhaps, however, it should, particularly if a justifiable case can be made to bring the legitimacy of the "proper" channels into doubt (and I submit such a case can be made here).
    I noble opinion yet based on what I have read just doesn't seem factual. It appears he has broken the law and not trusting expressing his concerns through proper channels isn't a valid legal excuse to have proceeded. I think he knows that. It's also why I earlier posted one can be both an American Hero and a treasonist.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464633 wrote:I noble opinion yet based on what I have read just doesn't seem factual. It appears he has broken the law and not trusting expressing his concerns through proper channels isn't a valid legal excuse to have proceeded. I think he knows that. It's also why I earlier posted one can be both an American Hero and a treasonist.
    I don't disagree with you, but I think we ought not settle for that to be the case.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1464636 wrote:I don't disagree with you, but I think we ought not settle for that to be the case.
    What makes you think we are?
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464646 wrote:What makes you think we are?
    The number of people I've seen suggesting that he is the problem.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1464650 wrote:The number of people I've seen suggesting that he is the problem.
    He certainly is a problem with regards to upholding his agreement for releasing classified information. With that I agree.

    I don't , however, believe the American public is satisfied nor accepting of the governemnt unknowingly accessing information they believed was private....but that's just speculation on my part.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464655 wrote:He certainly is a problem with regards to upholding his agreement for releasing classified information. With that I agree.

    I don't , however, believe the American public is satisfied nor accepting of the governemnt unknowingly accessing information they believed was private....but that's just speculation on my part.
    I would suggest that the problem is the agreement if it is enabling a government agency to do anything illicit against the American people. As such, I would suggest that anyone who outed such a program is quite the patriot.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1464658 wrote:I would suggest that the problem is the agreement if it is enabling a government agency to do anything illicit against the American people. As such, I would suggest that anyone who outed such a program is quite the patriot.
    ...and a criminal.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464671 wrote:...and a criminal.
    Under unjust laws, yes.

    Perhaps what is true ought not be so.
  • Con_Alma
    O-Trap;1464677 wrote:Under unjust laws, yes.
    It is those laws that we currently function under. Unless ruled otherwise, or changed he has illegally acted. I don't look unkindly on people who come to that conclusion.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464682 wrote:It is those laws that we currently function under. Unless ruled otherwise, or changed he has illegally acted. I don't look unkindly on people who come to that conclusion.
    I merely look unkindly on an institution claiming to be open to helping legitimate whistle blowers, but then setting them up with a system that fails.

    To me, there is little difference between that and a woman being charged for homicide for killing an abusive boyfriend. Regardless of the legal legitimacy of the case against her, the deck is stacked.

    I'm simply not a proponent for accepting the stacked deck, even if we haven't changed it yet.

    Or, at the very least, I'm okay with going against those who stacked the deck to help those who have been put into compromising positions by it, regardless of what those in authority say is "legal."
  • Con_Alma
    I'm not of the belief that most people are a proponent of accepting such. Again, just or not, he is a criminal.

    You or any of us can go against the deck stackers so long as we understand that if we do so illegally we may very well be both an American hero and a treasonist at the same time.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464706 wrote:I'm not of the belief that most people are a proponent of accepting such. Again, just or not, he is a criminal.

    You or any of us can go against the deck stackers so long as we understand that if we do so illegally we may very well be both an American hero and a treasonist at the same time.
    Again, I don't disagree with this, though I suppose it depends on your understanding of the term "treason."

    Makes me want to move somewhere where they care less about what their constituency is doing. I've heard Costa Rica is nice.
  • Con_Alma
    We all have that choice.

    I think I'll be staying here.
  • O-Trap
    Con_Alma;1464714 wrote:We all have that choice.

    I think I'll be staying here.
    Barring relationship ties, I probably wouldn't.