Edward Snowden

[Hudson Jones]

If Snowden really believed what they were doing was illegal he could have gone to a lawyer and the media, not the Chinese and Russians.

Look how well things turned out for Bradley Manning.

I bet Bradley Manning was sitting in solitary confinementand thinking, "boy! I'm so glad I thought I was going to be protected by the rules and policies of this beautiful, democratic nation."

[GostHacked]

Going to the media = Going to the American People. They were the ones whos rights were being violated, and any other disclosure would have been useless.

The argument some are making is that his actions were illegal. Even if he leaked it to the US media it would still have been illegal. Based on the NDA he signed (assumption) there were legal ramifications where jail time would have been warranted for the leak. So I am not buying it when some say he should have gone through the proper channels.

If he had gone through legal proper channels, this story would not have seen the light of day, or if it did, would have been small and brief and would not had had anywhere near the impact that it did have.

Edited July 11, 2013 by GostHacked

[Moonlight Graham]

The argument some are making is that his actions were illegal. Even if he leaked it to the US media it would still have been illegal. Based on the NDA he signed (assumption) there were legal ramifications where jail time would have been warranted for the leak. So I am not buying it when some say he should have gone through the proper channels.

If he had gone through legal proper channels, this story would not have seen the light of day, or if it did, would have been small and brief and would not had had anywhere near the impact that it did have.

Snowden, while extremely well-spoken and intelligent in his responses on-camera, is a bit of a dolt for publicly outing himself (on-camera no less!) when he leaked this stuff. He could have leaked this stuff anonymously to the media, just as 'Deep Throat' acted as an anonymous tipper for the Watergate scandal for decades until he purposely outed himself. Maybe he wanted to be a hero, maybe he just made a really bad decision, I'm not sure.

[Guest American Woman]

Going to the media = Going to the American People. They were the ones whos rights were being violated, and any other disclosure would have been useless.

Going to the media = illegal. Whether or not following the law is deemed "useless" by some means nothing. One cannot break the law simply because they don't like it or feel it's "useless." We don't know what would have happened if he had followed the legal route. Any claims to the contrary are mere speculation. But bottom line. He broke the law. Something even his dad is able to recognize and admit.

[GostHacked]

Going to the media = illegal. Whether or not following the law is deemed "useless" by some means nothing. One cannot break the law simply because they don't like it or feel it's "useless." We don't know what would have happened if he had followed the legal route. Any claims to the contrary are mere speculation. But bottom line. He broke the law. Something even his dad is able to recognize and admit.

What legal route? There was no legal way for him to release this information. You really think his bosses would say 'yeah sure release it, should be ok' ...?

People get fired for much much less.

[Guest American Woman]

What legal route? There was no legal way for him to release this information. You really think his bosses would say 'yeah sure release it, should be ok' ...?

People get fired for much much less.

I don't think he was too concerned about being fired, do you?

And yes, there was a legal route for him to take, as I've said repeatedly. If he had gone the legal route and failed, he would have an easier time defending himself in court. Again. He didn't even try. One can't simply take the law into their own hands.

What he did is illegal. Even his father recognizes and admits that.

....national security workers should report any concerns and harmful activities to the inspector general, who are supposed to be semi-independent of any government agency. If that doesn't work, there are other intra-government routes to consider, such as going to Congress.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-whistleblower-edward-snowden-should-have-done-2013-6#ixzz2Yl92L7JH

Edited July 11, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

One can't simply take the law into their own hands.

Rosa Parks

[GostHacked]

Rosa Parks

Great response !!

[bleeding heart]

Daniel Elsberg.

[Guest American Woman]

Rosa Parks

You might want to read up a bit about Rosa Parks. She most definitely did not "simply take the law into her own hands."

[guyser]

You might want to read up a bit about Rosa Parks. She most definitely did not "simply take the law into her own hands."

You're right.

She didnt take the law into her own hands.

Neither did Snowden.

She refused to move because she was fed up with the laws that forced her to

They both ignored what they thought were bad laws to push for change.

But of course one most certainly can take the law into ones own hand

[Guest American Woman]

You're right.

She didnt take the law into her own hands.

Neither did Snowden.

She refused to move because she was fed up with the laws that forced her to

They both ignored what they thought were bad laws to push for change.

But of course one most certainly can take the law into ones own hand

Again. I suggest you read up about Rosa Parks as well as read what I've had to say about Snowden, including the "what he should have done" article I linked to.

[Scotty]

The argument some are making is that his actions were illegal. Even if he leaked it to the US media it would still have been illegal. Based on the NDA he signed (assumption) there were legal ramifications where jail time would have been warranted for the leak. So I am not buying it when some say he should have gone through the proper channels.

If he had gone through legal proper channels, this story would not have seen the light of day, or if it did, would have been small and brief and would not had had anywhere near the impact that it did have.

You're ignoring the fact this was an entirely legal program which he had no right to out. No one was breaking any laws, and it isn't clear that there was any public interest in him exposing the program as he did. Most people with more than half a brain were well aware the US government was involved in a lot of on-line electronic monitoring. We didn't need to know the intimate details. Who has he helped by his disclosure other than the Russians, the Chinese, and the terrorists who have now become more familiar with how to avoid electronic monitoring?

What Snowden did was to decide that even though several presidents and the leaders of both parties in both houses of congress had decided this program was necessary and must be kept secret, his judgement outweighed theirs. This in spite of the fact federal judges were overseeing the constitutionality and legality of what was happening. Sheer arrogance born out of a smug sense of superiority and immaturity.

[guyser]

Again. I suggest you read up about Rosa Parks as well as read what I've had to say about Snowden, including the "what he should have done" article I linked to.

Oh that would be silly.

I have countered the point that was made, quite nicely too.

He did what he wanted to do.

So did Rosa.

[GostHacked]

You're ignoring the fact this was an entirely legal program which he had no right to out. No one was breaking any laws, and it isn't clear that there was any public interest in him exposing the program as he did.

Only legal because the laws were changed to allow this type of thing to occur. So now they rely on FISA courts supplying warrants. This changed from them needing to go to a civilian judge to get a warrant. So the intelligence services courts are overseeing intelligence services.

Yes this is all legal because the laws have changed to make it so. Another point that is lost here.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh that would be silly.

I have countered the point that was made, quite nicely too.

He did what he wanted to do.

So did Rosa.

Seriously. I strongly suggest you take my advice. I will point out, for starters, that Rosa Parks didn't flee the country after making her stance; she stayed to face the music (ie: she was arrested) and fight for what she believed in - and her stand was made after she was quite actively pursuing civil rights by legal channels. Now re-read what I've said about Snowden and what the article I linked to has to say - and then we can discuss this further.

Edited July 11, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

Seriously. I strongly suggest you take my advice. I will point out, for starters, that Rosa Parks didn't flee the country after making her stance; she stayed to face the music (ie: she was arrested) and fight for what she believed in - and her stand was made after she was quite actively pursuing civil rights by legal channels. Now re-read what I've said about Snowden and what the article I linked to has to say - and then we can discuss this further.

They both felt maligned, one for her rights the other about his govt's secrets.

They both felt a need to expose this. They both accomplished what they set out to do.

Just because one fled the country, he certainly didnt hide who he was, neither did Rosa.

The point is, people stood up for what they believed in

She stuck around to find out just what rights she had.

He exposed his govt's actions.He left for the obvious reason he did not think he would get a fair shake. Sometimes blowing things up guarantees a way to affect change.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Guyser2

[Guest American Woman]

They both felt maligned, one for her rights the other about his govt's secrets.

They both felt a need to expose this. They both accomplished what they set out to do.

Just because one fled the country, he certainly didnt hide who he was, neither did Rosa.

The point is, people stood up for what they believed in

She stuck around to find out just what rights she had.

He exposed his govt's actions.He left for the obvious reason he did not think he would get a fair shake. Sometimes blowing things up guarantees a way to affect change.

Are you purposely missing the "legal channel first" aspect?? Or is it seriously escaping you?

And sticking around, being arrested, isn't "simply taking the law into one's own hands" as there were consequences; ie" being arrested, which confirms that one cannot "simply take the law into their own hands."

Edited July 11, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

Are you purposely missing the "legal channel first" aspect?? Or is it seriously escaping you?

Not at all. He felt no compelling reason to try legal channels. Maybe he felt that would only play in to the hands of those who would not let the light shine on what he knew.

He achieved what he wanted to achieve, exposing misgivings within his govt.

His govt were violating peoples rights (at least thats the argument). He, and many many knowledgeable people understood his rights would probably be violated should he stay.

Retired CIA officers gave him the Sam Adams Award.

Polls exist that show most dont think of him as a traitor, they agree he should have done i.

And sticking around, being arrested, isn't "simply taking the law into one's own hands" as there were consequences; ie" being arrested, which confirms that one cannot "simply take the law into their own hands."

She never took the law into her hands , nor did Snowden.

And to use current venacular...Are you purposely missing the fact that for her to affect change, she had to get charged in order to establish what rights she had? Snowden felt he could affect change by merely releasing all this info and having himself named publically

Her public stance was the catalyst , his catalyst were the papers/info he released..

[Guest American Woman]

Not at all. He felt no compelling reason to try legal channels.

And that is why he is in he position he is in.

Maybe he felt that would only play in to the hands of those who would not let the light shine on what he knew.

"Maybe" is hardly a defense.

He achieved what he wanted to achieve, exposing misgivings within his govt.

And he could have done that through legal channels. I doubt being in limbo in a Russian airport is what he hoped to achieve. But as has been pointed out, if he had tried going through legal channels first, then resorted to going to the media if that didn't accomplish anything, he would have more of a case. As it is, he simply broke the law.

His govt were violating peoples rights (at least thats the argument). He, and many many knowledgeable people understood his rights would probably be violated should he stay.

That's the argument, but it doesn't mean it's correct. That's not for him to decide, and that's the point. As for what "many, many knowledgeable people understood," that also carries no legal weight.

Retired CIA officers gave him the Sam Adams Award.

A lot of people give a lot of people awards. You think that proves anything?

Polls exist that show most dont think of him as a traitor, they agree he should have done i.

Polls exist that show most people thought Iraq had WWD too, but that didn't make them right, did it? Polls exist that show most thought we should go to war in Iraq. Do you see that as proof that we should have?

She never took the law into her hands , nor did Snowden.

He most certainly did. When people break the law to do what they think they have a right to do even as they know it's illegal, that's taking the law into their own hands. It's doing what they feel the are justified to do, in spite of the law.

And to use current venacular...Are you purposely missing the fact that for her to affect change, she had to get charged in order to establish what rights she had? Snowden felt he could affect change by merely releasing all this info and having himself named publically

And in doing so, he broke the law - and by not trying the legal channels first, he simply broke the law. Had he tried to exact change through legal channels first, and failed, it would be a different scenario. Again. Rosa Parks DID try to affect change through legal channels first. And she didn't run away.

Her public stance was the catalyst , his catalyst were the papers/info he released..

Her public stance was the catalyst AFTER she'd been working on affecting change through legal channels. She tried and failed through legal channels. Perhaps Snowden would have been successful had he pursued this legally. But we'll never know, because he took it upon himself to break the law rather than pursue legal channels. There's no excuse for him to bypass the law - and illegally release the information to the press without having tried legal channels first.

Edited July 11, 2013 by American Woman

[jacee]

Not at all. He felt no compelling reason to try legal channels. Maybe he felt that would only play in to the hands of those who would not let the light shine on what he knew.

He achieved what he wanted to achieve, exposing misgivings within his govt.

His govt were violating peoples rights (at least thats the argument). He, and many many knowledgeable people understood his rights would probably be violated should he stay.

Retired CIA officers gave him the Sam Adams Award.

Polls exist that show most dont think of him as a traitor, they agree he should have done it.

I didn't know this. Thx guyser2

sam-adams-award-winner-2013-is-edward-snowden

In choosing Edward Snowden as this years award winner the team "praised his decision to reveal the extent of US government electronic surveillance of people in the United States and around the world".The winners of the award since since 2002 are Coleen Rowley, Katharine Gun, Sibel Edmonds, Craig Murray, Samuel Provance, Frank Grevil, Larry Wilkerson, Julian Assange, Thomas Andrews Drake and Jesselyn Radack, Thomas Fingar and last, but far from least, Edward Snowden.

[guyser]

And that is why he is in he position he is in.

Of course! He knew it would happen.

He knew or felt (the argument is) that govt was violating rights. Why would they respect his?

"Maybe" is hardly a defense.

Its not a defence and didnt offer it up as one, I just surmised he may be thinking that. Makes sense.

And he could have done that through legal channels. I doubt being in limbo in a Russian airport is what he hoped to achieve. But as has been pointed out, if he had tried going through legal channels first, then resorted to going to the media if that didn't accomplish anything, he would have more of a case. As it is, he simply broke the law.

He could have huh?

You KNOW he could have gone to a Senior ranking officer and said I have info on spying? Glad you know that.

Others would pause and think, I may just disappear or at best all my info may disappear and then the game of what can you prove when go to the media begins.

He may simply have never been able to get to the media once the govt had their hands on him.

Surely you get that.

but maybe not....as you opine below

That's the argument, but it doesn't mean it's correct. That's not for him to decide, and that's the point.

The risk of him being taken down and info stripped from him was presumable too great. He wanted to ensure the message got out...ergo...go somewhere he knew shared some of his concerns. Since he spoke Chinese, he went to Hong Kong.

A lot of people give a lot of people awards. You think that proves anything?

Not at all....CIA retirees .....hmmm...methinks they may have some inside knowledge and of their own actions while employed that they did not like vis a vis violating rights.

But then again....maybe it was the Glee Club chapter of the CIA. Oi vey.

Polls exist that show most people thought Iraq had WWD too, but that didn't make them right, did it? Polls exist that show most thought we should go to war in Iraq. Do you see that as proof that we should have?

They were lied to and responded with the knowledge of the day. When the truth came out they changed their minds

The belief (as far as they now know) that violations of rights have occurred via PRISM et al means they polled that its right he did that, according to them.

No it carries no weight, but does suggest the mindset of the people.

He most certainly did. When people break the law to do what they think they have a right to do even as they know it's illegal, that's taking the law into their own hands. It's doing what they feel the are justified to do, in spite of the law.

Sigh...no they didnt.

You best understand the phrase means to do something illegal to punish someone else because the law wont.

Rosa didnt, Snowden didnt.

And in doing so, he broke the law - and by not trying the legal channels first,

He could well have disappeared and no one would know why for sure.

Her public stance was the catalyst AFTER she'd been working on affecting change through legal channels. She tried and failed through legal channels. Perhaps Snowden would have been successful had he pursued this legally. But we'll never know, because he took it upon himself to break the law rather than pursue legal channels. There's no excuse for him to bypass the law - and illegally release the information to the press without having tried legal channels first.

Oh man, naivete at its finest.

No excuse for him? I thought no one was to impose on others what they should think? It is your mantra, yet...you know his thought process about bypassing the law. You know he had no concerns about disappearing, info going away magically, his voice being heard?

Amazing !

Edited July 11, 2013 by Guyser2

[Bryan]

You're ignoring the fact this was an entirely legal program which he had no right to out.

Plenty of things have occurred that were legal at the time. What's written on a piece of paper, and what is morally right are not always in concert.

[kimmy]

As Hudson points out, the case of Bradley Manning is an example of what would have happened to Snowden if he had decided to "face the music". Manning endured over 2 years of cruel and unusual punishment before his trial; I doubt any of you "face the music" people would volunteer for 2 years of psychological abuse.

And "legal channels" is BS; the legal channels are entirely in the control of the people who cooked up this scam in the first place.

-k

[cybercoma]

You're ignoring the fact this was an entirely legal program which he had no right to out.

Nobody's ignoring that. That's the entire point.