Edward Snowden

[kennith]

I find the responses to this thread particularly interesting and telling - especially from those who often proclaim the primacy of the Constitution and consistently decry the encroachment of the Federal Government into the rights of the individual, or indeed any increase in power of the Fed at all. ...but the minute it has to do with "national security", oh no, it's a whooooole different story. Then the LAW is your friend, and the individual is the bad guy. You're no different than Statist Democrats who want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Same tune, different instrument.

The constitution makes it very clear what "Treason" is:



The term "Enemies" is an important thing to take note of. "Enemies" exist during a time of war. If we are not at war, there can be no Treason. If you doubt this assertion have a look at the case-law surrounding it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/treason

If revealing the actions of our Government to the People of our Nation is Treason, then the inference is that the Government is at war with WE THE PEOPLE. If that's not a problem to you, then I don't know what is.

Revealing that we're spying on our friends and rivals in the world is not treason either - I'm quite certain their intelligence agencies and governments already know full well what we've been up to, since a great many people in this country already knew full well. Snowden didn't really reveal anything new - he just confirmed it. He's a whistleblower, and should have been protected by our laws protecting whistleblowers.

Regarding claims that he's a self-important douche: what he did IS important. I've seen nothing that makes it seem as though he regards himself as particularly important, but he clearly thinks that the American People have a right to know what's being done in their name and has placed his life in grave danger to tell them.

A traitor is not always guilty of treason. There is a difference, and it's not a matter of nitpicking.

Every action has consequences, and this is not a simple matter of supporting some government incursion into our rights while waving the flag of national security.

He's placed government assets at risk the world over, and painted an even bigger target on our intelligence community. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with the tracking of my information.

In order to work in certain circles for Uncle Sam, you must give away almost all of your individual rights as defined by the Constitution. You have a mission, and all the information you need in order to execute that mission is provided.

There are other pieces in play, though, and he knew that. No mission is entirely self-contained, and that is why your individual rights disappear. It's a fail-safe.

His mission failed as a result of deliberate sabotage, for which he is directly responsible. The nature of that mission is irrelevant. This isn't television.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[knewsom]

Kris-
Your logic stream is a bit convoluted...

The treason thing is a stretch, I'll agree with you there, but the actions are treasonous in nature because of the external implications not the internal ones. Likewise its not that he informed other countries that we're doing what we do-its the specific sources/methods/etc that he's revealed, in detail. Or looked at another way, he's just blown big B billion's of dollars of your taxpayer money. If you're good with that, awesome-it puts you, your family, and your country's future in some jeopardy but celebrate him if you like.

There is a distinction between his release of domestic aspects and international; one can be argued at great length (as it has here) as to the merit of it-the other steps well across a line and illustrates the forsaking of our country.

I'd also argue his life isn't in grave danger...he has never actually known grave danger, just mild discomfort. Even if arrested the closest he'd get to grave danger is if he got put in Gen Pop.

cheers-
Ray

If my logic stream is convoluted, then so must the logic stream of the court rulings that created the case law I referenced. I opposed the unconstitutional laws that brought this nightmare of a system into place, and I oppose what the government is doing without my consent, especially since it's so secret I cannot GRANT my consent. I have issues with that, and if it means maybe we'll have an attack or two that kill a couple people, then so be it. If we were really worried about public safety we'd ban cars and chemicals that cause the diseases that plague our country and kill us by the hundreds of thousands every year.

As for him being in grave danger, I read the news every day expecting to read how he died in a mysterious car/train/plane/helicopter/motorcycle crash, just like this guy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/michael-hastings-dead_n_3462278.html?ir=Media

A traitor is not always guilty of treason. There is a difference, and it's not a matter of nitpicking.

Every action has consequences, and this is not a simple matter of supporting some government incursion into our rights while waving the flag of national security.

He's placed government assets at risk the world over, and painted an even bigger target on our intelligence community. It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with the tracking of my information.

In order to work in certain circles for Uncle Sam, you must give away almost all of your individual rights as defined by the Constitution. You have a mission, and all the information you need in order to execute that mission is provided.

There are other pieces in play, though, and he knew that. No mission is entirely self-contained, and that is why your individual rights disappear. It's a fail-safe.

His mission failed as a result of deliberate sabotage, for which he is directly responsible. The nature of that mission is irrelevant. This isn't television.

Cheers,

Kennith

Is he guilty of betraying his mission? Yes. However, that mission is unconstitutional. If his mission had been to confiscate the guns of lawful citizens and he betrayed that mission, what would you have to say then?

What assets has he given up? Has he published a list of operatives? No. He's made public the system we use to spy on the world, including our own people. I find your notion that he's put us all in grave danger quite hyperbolic.

 

[brian4d]

Kris, I agree with you. In regards to our constitution there cannot be a double standard. Period. I'll note once again this is a partisan issue on the hill. Yea, right....

 

[kennith]

Is he guilty of betraying his mission? Yes. However, that mission is unconstitutional. If his mission had been to confiscate the guns of lawful citizens and he betrayed that mission, what would you have to say then?

I know you want that to be a direct comparison, as would many people, but it's not. This is a more complicated issue.

What assets has he given up? Has he published a list of operatives? No. He's made public the system we use to spy on the world, including our own people. I find your notion that he's put us all in grave danger quite hyperbolic.

Neither of those two things need be done in order to cause the problem, Knewsom, and I certainly didn't suggest that he's "put us all in grave danger".

Indeed, his actions likely won't affect you to any observable degree.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

Kris, I agree with you. In regards to our constitution there cannot be a double standard. Period. I'll note once again this is a partisan issue on the hill. Yea, right....

There's a double standard the second you put on a federally issued uniform, even if it's only an ID badge, or agree to work with those who have already done so.

Snowden's actions carry a different weight than the actions of a civilian.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[knewsom]

I know you want that to be a direct comparison, as would many people, but it's not. This is a more complicated issue.



Neither of those two things need be done in order to cause the problem, Knewsom, and I certainly didn't suggest that he's "put us all in grave danger".

Indeed, his actions likely won't affect you to any observable degree.

Cheers,

Kennith

Actually, what you said was:

He's a traitorous nightmare.

The results of his actions dismantled in days what took decades to achieve. Anything the U.S. built to give up is gone, now. He may as well be walking around the world with a fucking flamethrower.

He's placed a lot of lives in danger.

Cheers,

Kennith

I know that you want there to be a discernible difference between the two, but there simply is not. Both could be easily construed as in our national security interests, both violate the Constitution. It's only more "complicated" because you agree with one and not the other. You want to pick and choose which parts of the Law to obey and which parts you do not, just like Democrats. Just like Republicans. Just like a Statist. We must protect those that speak out against illegal actions by the government, which includes men and women in uniform (and badges). We must do this to protect all of our freedoms.

 

[brian4d]

There's a double standard the second you put on a federally issued uniform, even if it's only an ID badge, or agree to work with those who have already done so.

Snowden's actions carry a different weight than the actions of a civilian.

Cheers,

Kennith

I don't see where your going with this Kennith. Whistle blowers are almost always conscience minded people with the inside job.

 

[kennith]

It's only more "complicated" because you agree with one and not the other. You want to pick and choose which parts of the Law to obey and which parts you do not,

That's where you're seriously wrong, so far as the Constitution is concerned.

You would go so far as to suggest that the absolute King of keeping to himself would encourage constitutionally unsound privacy incursions? That's laughable. :rofl:

The only reason I'm even remotely sympathetic to such practices is past frustration, and those frustrations could have been alleviated with a more efficient use of assets. That's Washington's problem.

If I were running for President, it would be on a platform of adherence to the Constitution. I believe in the Constitution, and I believe that it allows for a secure nation without the abuse of power.

I'm capable of appreciating someone's position while damning their actions. There was naughty snooping going on. I get it. I'm not an idiot. I'm not praising the government, I'm bitching about Snowden.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

I don't see where your going with this Kennith. Whistle blowers are almost always conscience minded people with the inside job.

I wasn't going anywhere. I just pointed out that there is indeed a double standard, because many people aren't aware of it.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[1920SF]

If my logic stream is convoluted, then so must the logic stream of the court rulings that created the case law I referenced. I opposed the unconstitutional laws that brought this nightmare of a system into place, and I oppose what the government is doing without my consent, especially since it's so secret I cannot GRANT my consent. I have issues with that, and if it means maybe we'll have an attack or two that kill a couple people, then so be it. If we were really worried about public safety we'd ban cars and chemicals that cause the diseases that plague our country and kill us by the hundreds of thousands every year.

As for him being in grave danger, I read the news every day expecting to read how he died in a mysterious car/train/plane/helicopter/motorcycle crash, just like this guy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/michael-hastings-dead_n_3462278.html?ir=Media

Is he guilty of betraying his mission? Yes. However, that mission is unconstitutional. If his mission had been to confiscate the guns of lawful citizens and he betrayed that mission, what would you have to say then?

What assets has he given up? Has he published a list of operatives? No. He's made public the system we use to spy on the world, including our own people. I find your notion that he's put us all in grave danger quite hyperbolic.

So the case law you referenced regarding treason? Simply put, who cares? Nobody gets actually accused of the crime of treason and put to death in the US. There is a difference between being charged with the legal crime of treason under US law and being treasonous.

Regarding the constitutionality of the law; pay your ACLU dues and see how their court case goes-at present it isn't Unconstitutional-that's just your opinion of what you know. If you are under the naive belief that you have a right to know everything the Government is doing then you are delusional vice convoluted....

...something that is borne out by posting an article about the death of Michael Hastings with the intimation that the Gov't killed that guy off. He just died dude, it happens, all the time. There isn't any grand conspiracy behind his unfortunate demise.

Hyperbole is inserting the seizure of guns analogy as a replacement for what he did-and then saying it is unconstitutional (which the things he revealed, as we've discussed, weren't as yet unconstitutional).

The resources he gave up, the cooperation he gave up, and the things that he took with him go well beyond if you're still using draft emails to converse with a high school sweetheart and don't want the government knowing what gmail already does-it threatens access to critical information that drives national security. Two specific areas where it hurts immediately are counter-terror and counter-proliferation. When you put together terrorists and nuclear/chem/bio all the sudden that dumbass comment you made about it being a few people dying so that you can have privacy you likely weren't even aware you had nor used becomes even more trite.

Nations don't have friends Kris, they have interests and allies. Interests are things done to perpetuate the success of the nation and the security of its people, allies are people you hope will help out if things go bad. Intelligence is critical to that, when people come inside and decide what is, and what isn't, information to remain secret as an individual they put the nation in danger. If your life is so happy and complacent that you don't understand that be grateful; but also know you are doing precious little to retain that security other than existing.

 

[D Chapman]

So the case law you referenced regarding treason? Simply put, who cares? Nobody gets actually accused of the crime of treason and put to death in the US. There is a difference between being charged with the legal crime of treason under US law and being treasonous.

Regarding the constitutionality of the law; pay your ACLU dues and see how their court case goes-at present it isn't Unconstitutional-that's just your opinion of what you know. If you are under the naive belief that you have a right to know everything the Government is doing then you are delusional vice convoluted....

...something that is borne out by posting an article about the death of Michael Hastings with the intimation that the Gov't killed that guy off. He just died dude, it happens, all the time. There isn't any grand conspiracy behind his unfortunate demise.

Hyperbole is inserting the seizure of guns analogy as a replacement for what he did-and then saying it is unconstitutional (which the things he revealed, as we've discussed, weren't as yet unconstitutional).

The resources he gave up, the cooperation he gave up, and the things that he took with him go well beyond if you're still using draft emails to converse with a high school sweetheart and don't want the government knowing what gmail already does-it threatens access to critical information that drives national security. Two specific areas where it hurts immediately are counter-terror and counter-proliferation. When you put together terrorists and nuclear/chem/bio all the sudden that dumbass comment you made about it being a few people dying so that you can have privacy you likely weren't even aware you had nor used becomes even more trite.

Nations don't have friends Kris, they have interests and allies. Interests are things done to perpetuate the success of the nation and the security of its people, allies are people you hope will help out if things go bad. Intelligence is critical to that, when people come inside and decide what is, and what isn't, information to remain secret as an individual they put the nation in danger. If your life is so happy and complacent that you don't understand that be grateful; but also know you are doing precious little to retain that security other than existing.

Only if it were that simple. The government corruption runs deep. You really believe the information they gather is used solely for national security? If so, you're loony. And I think this, above all else, is why a percentage of the American people stand by Snowden, especially after IRS targeting of tea party and other conservative groups; Benghazi; the Justice Department's secret collection of journalists phone records.....

I truly believe Snowden will be buried with Jimmy Hoffa. It's just a matter of time. It will make national headlines for 3 or 4 days that Snowden has gone missing, then he'll go down in history books with Abdul al-Awlaki.

 

[1920SF]

Only if it were that simple. The government corruption runs deep. You really believe the information they gather is used solely for national security? If so, you're loony. And I think this, above all else, is why a percentage of the American people stand by Snowden, especially after IRS targeting of tea party and other conservative groups; Benghazi; the Justice Department's secret collection of journalists phone records.....

I truly believe Snowden will be buried with Jimmy Hoffa. It's just a matter of time. It will make national headlines for 3 or 4 days that Snowden has gone missing, then he'll go down in history books with Abdul al-Awlaki.

Of course the information can be used for things other than national security, but the primary purpose of it isn't for the Democratic Party to go after adversaries-after all this is a bipartisan affair here that spans the last two administrations.

A percentage of the American people believe 9/11 was a hoax, that the President is a Muslim, and any number of other things. The IRS targeting conservative groups hiding under 401C and not going after liberal ones doing the same is problematic (as they should have gone after all the groups wholesale who were in violation of the code, not on a partisan basis no matter how annoying the Tea Party is), the Justice Dept thing doesn't really bother me but I'm biased there. Moreover if you want to talk about grand manipulations of intelligence for the nefarious purpose it's not as though we can cast aside invading Iraq-or 9/11 for that matter (if we hold that responsibility belongs to the person in charge at the time of occurrence.

My point is that the damage that Snowden has done to the country is greater than the service provided by his optic on the leaked programs. By an order of magnitude in fact.

Abdul should have had better parents. Yemen is a dangerous place.

 

[D Chapman]

Abdul should have had better parents. Yemen is a dangerous place.

So if I killed your children after I killed you, I could simply say your child should have had better parents?

Fuck you, dude. You're supposed to be protecting American citizens, not killing them. Are 16 year old kids really the ones American solders need to be targeting? Are we in that bad of shape?

Its sad you cannot even admit to mistakes. See what the military is doing to you? You're such a man.

 

[D Chapman]

Of course the information can be used for things other than national security, but the primary purpose of it isn't for the Democratic Party to go after adversaries-after all this is a bipartisan affair here that spans the last two administrations.

A percentage of the American people believe 9/11 was a hoax, that the President is a Muslim, and any number of other things. The IRS targeting conservative groups hiding under 401C and not going after liberal ones doing the same is problematic (as they should have gone after all the groups wholesale who were in violation of the code, not on a partisan basis no matter how annoying the Tea Party is), the Justice Dept thing doesn't really bother me but I'm biased there. Moreover if you want to talk about grand manipulations of intelligence for the nefarious purpose it's not as though we can cast aside invading Iraq-or 9/11 for that matter (if we hold that responsibility belongs to the person in charge at the time of occurrence.

My point is that the damage that Snowden has done to the country is greater than the service provided by his optic on the leaked programs. By an order of magnitude in fact.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit here. I'd say this information is used more for personal gain than protecting our Country. Prove me wrong.

We have a Constitution. We live by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We may at times need to give up a little liberty to protect ourselves from others who our government has pissed off. Yet, we never gain that liberty back. Our government likes it that way, especially this administration.

I do not agree with the wire tapping. On anyone.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[1920SF]

Be careful talking about people's kids-look where that got you last time.

Thanks for the lecture though about manhood & duty though-you read a book about it or something?

I've been shot at and IED'd by plenty of 16 year olds, this one in particular was in the wrong place at the wrong time but most importantly with the wrong people-something that his parents should have been guarding against instead of facilitating. I'm not calling it a mistake because I don't believe it was.

 

[D Chapman]

Be careful talking about people's kids-look where that got you last time.

Thanks for the lecture though about manhood & duty though-you read a book about it or something?

I've been shot at and IED'd by plenty of 16 year olds, this one in particular was in the wrong place at the wrong time but most importantly with the wrong people-something that his parents should have been guarding against instead of facilitating. I'm not calling it a mistake because I don't believe it was.

Oh here we go. You going to kick my ass, too? Or you just going to call the cops? Big guy you are. You remind me of The Wolf over on D-90. Military tough guys. How do you fit all that dick and big balls in your pants?

It's amazing Saddam could be located, and captured alive; bin Ladin could be tracked down and shot in the head at point blank range after storming a compound full of armed guards (if you believe that story); but some 16 year old American citizen who's father did some shit he had nothing to do with had to have a bomb dropped on him from 35,000 feet all because......he should have had better parents. Maybe the government should have tapped his walkie-talkie records and gathered some better intel before acting.

 

[1920SF]

Oh here we go. You going to kick my ass, too? Or you just going to call the cops? Big guy you are. You remind me of The Wolf over on D-90. Military tough guys. How do you fit all that dick and big balls in your pants?

It's amazing Saddam could be located, and captured alive; bin Ladin could be tracked down and shot in the head at point blank range after storming a compound full of armed guards (if you believe that story); but some 16 year old American citizen who's father did some shit he had nothing to do with had to have a bomb dropped on him from 35,000 feet all because......he should have had better parents. Maybe the government should have tapped his walkie-talkie records and gathered some better intel before acting.

Maybe so Dan; perhaps we need your wisdom and guidance to assist in getting all this right. Like many other things, the invitation is always open for you to get involved.

 

[mgreenspan]

Only if it were that simple. ...
Abdul al-Awlaki.

Doesn't that article say that they thought the real target of that strike was alone? What if it had been a 17 year old journalism student doing some sort of thesis project interviewing al Qaeda members, or a regular journalist, or a religious figure who wasn't radicalized? Are you angry/bringing it up as a point because it was a kid, an American, or collateral damage to a legitimate target? If they are collateral damage they are collateral damage regardless of their age or nationality.


This is for everybody in this thread in general:

What I'd like to know is how many of you have actually changed anything about the way that you communicate since all of this has come out? If you haven't changed at all then you shouldn't be complaining. If you have changed to avoid being "spied" on then by all means be angry about it because you deserve to have your way of life back without your privacy being invaded. Accepting it but saying you don't like it is just like being a bystander to a crime and doing nothing to stop it.

 

[Rugbier]

He will be having tea with Bin Laden.....somewhere in Venezuela

 

[D Chapman]

Maybe so Dan; perhaps we need your wisdom and guidance to assist in getting all this right. Like many other things, the invitation is always open for you to get involved.

I tried that once. Right out of high school in fact. I still remember driving myself down to the Marine recruitment office and speaking with Staff SGT King. I remember him telling me how great the food was and how much pussy I was going to get. Even at 18 years old I could see where this was going.

But you're right, I should have served. I'm still kind of kicking myself for not entering the Air Force after college. That was a sweet deal. Good pay and good sign-on bonus. Grave Registry out of Dover - could have probably had a desk job by now counting the days till my 20-year retirement and those sweet veteran medical benefits.

Problem for me, though, is imagining the type of person I would have become. Look at yourself in the mirror one day, Ray, and ask yourself at what point did you cross that line between protecting the freedom of this Country, and taking it away. I'm sorry you cannot understand this any longer - the military has molded you into the type of person you are today, and the type of person they want you to be. I've met, and buried, a lot of veterans from WWII and Vietnam. There is a difference in these servicemen vs present day soldiers. You can even see it in their eyes, and you can hear it in the voices of the few who will actually talk about their service. One thing is for sure, you'd never hear any of these vets say and American citizen should have had better parents as a reason for killing them.