Jump to content

Edward Snowden


Shady

Recommended Posts

Because it seems some people fail to realize that the US constitution is bigger than the US government and any secondary legislation that they pass. They fail to realize that the Constitution is the primary law, upon which all other law is bound.

I agree. We have a legal law, but it violates the constitution. With the Constitution being the law of the land, all laws need to fall inline with it. The US government is violating the constitution, that much seems obvious. So how can Snowden be faulted for breaking the law when the US government has been working to marginalize the Constitution and breaking constitutional law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 741
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

:lol:

Uh, yeah. Charging him with breaking the law = persecution.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Snowden sure is a drama queen. Regardless, I'm not sure what's so hard for the Saint-Snowden Worshippers to understand. One can applaud and understand his first action, but at the same time acknowledge his traitorous actions that followed. Fleeing to China, Russia, and now who knows, with laptops full of classified information, in which hostile government can now obtain HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONSTITUTION OR AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERITES. Why is that so hard to understand?????

I was told to start my own thread if I wanted to focus on his secondary actions. So I did. And now you people are in here, b*tching about the same thing. Completely pathetic as usual.

Oh, and a message to you Johnny-come-lately constitutionalists. Look in the mirror. Most of what you pursue politically violates the constitution. You people crap all over the constitution on a constant basis. And NOW you all of a sudden have the nerve to bring up a so-called violation of said constitution? Whatever. You have absolutely no credibility at all. You're a laughing stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and a message to you Johnny-come-lately constitutionalists. Look in the mirror. Most of what you pursue politically violates the constitution. You people crap all over the constitution on a constant basis. And NOW you all of a sudden have the nerve to bring up a so-called violation of said constitution? Whatever. You have absolutely no credibility at all. You're a laughing stock.

You should try an argument that isn't ad hominem some time. It's fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: lolwut

Oh, and a message to you Johnny-come-lately constitutionalists. Look in the mirror. Most of what you pursue politically violates the constitution. You people crap all over the constitution on a constant basis. And NOW you all of a sudden have the nerve to bring up a so-called violation of said constitution? Whatever. You have absolutely no credibility at all. You're a laughing stock.

Where, in particular, have us "Johnny-come-lately constitutionalists" taken a crap on the constitution?

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is, she was trying to change the country's laws for the better before the incident on the bus. She failed. Again. She tried the legal route first. Again. Had Snowden given the legal route a chance first, he would be in a different position. But he didn't. He simply took the law into his own hands. He chose to break the law rather than try to work within the law.

Strange that some can't seem to wrap their heads around the reality that Snowden didn't try to work within the law, and if he had, he would have more of a case. I've repeated this several times now and I've provided a link explaining just that.

Again. Snowden did not try to act within the law. He simply chose to ignore the law altogether.

This seems so naive to me. How on earth could have Snowden worked within the law?

Nations need whistleblowers like Snowden to come forth when government over extend their powers. If I were an American, I'd be extremely grateful that someone was brave enough to risk their life to bring this issue into the public discourse.

Edited by ChristopherJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems so naive to me. How on earth could have Snowden worked within the law?

Nations need whistleblowers like Snowden to come forth when government over extend their powers. If I were an American, I'd be extremely grateful that someone was brave enough to risk their life to bring this issue into the public discourse.

Yup and thats why most Americans think he did a good thing. Especially younger Americans.

Fifty-five percent of registered American voters consider former NSA contractor Edward Snowden to be a whistleblower, and only 34 percent call him a traitor - despite US lawmakers labeling him as such.

A poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that the majority of Americans perceive Snowden as a man who exposed the inappropriate surveillance tactics of the US government - not as a man who betrayed his duty.

“The verdict that Snowden is not a traitor goes against almost the unified view of the nation’s political establishment,”Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac’s polling institute, said in a press release.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), have vilified Snowden, calling him a traitor for revealing classified national security information. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called his actions "treason," and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) argued that Snowden is dangerous.

“He’s no hero. He put people’s lives at risk,” King told reporters in June.

But according to the Quinnipiac poll, lawmakers’ views are out of line with those of the American public. In light of recent revelations regarding the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance tactics, more voters have expressed their discontent with the US government. Fifty-five percent of poll respondents consider Snowden to be a whistleblower, while only 34 percent consider him a traitor.

Favorability toward Snowden was highest among Independents, with 58 percent of them calling him a whistleblower. Fifty-five percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Democrats referred to him as such.

The ones villifying this guy are state authority sycophants... Outraged that someone would challenge their favorite authority. Outraged that he didnt follow the rules as defined by the afformentioned authority.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

This seems so naive to me. How on earth could have Snowden worked within the law?

I've explained it several times now. If what I said seems so naive to you, perhaps the problem lies with an inability to comprehend what's been said.

Nations need whistleblowers like Snowden to come forth when government over extend their powers.

There are proper procedures to follow in the U.S. when one thinks the government has over extended its powers. It's not up to individuals to draw that conclusion. What a world that would be, if we all ignored the law because we have determined that it's an over extension of power. Somehow I don't see the 'taking the law into one's own hands' as productive.

If I were an American, I'd be extremely grateful that someone was brave enough to risk their life to bring this issue into the public discourse.

So you're hoping for a 'brave Canadian' to come forward and bring Canada's spying techniques to light, to bring laptops full of classified information to countries like China and Russia, is that it? As an American, I'd love to see the Canadian government's reaction. :) Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems so naive to me. How on earth could have Snowden worked within the law?

Nations need whistleblowers like Snowden to come forth when government over extend their powers. If I were an American, I'd be extremely grateful that someone was brave enough to risk their life to bring this issue into the public discourse.

I don't really see how Snowden could have worked within the law, given the information he had was classified. I still think the guy is quite dim for outing this information while exposing his own identity, if he were smart he simply could have tipped this information to the media as an anonymous source and saved himself the headache of being hunted around the world and ruining his own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I don't really see how Snowden could have worked within the law, given the information he had was classified. I still think the guy is quite dim for outing this information while exposing his own identity, if he were smart he simply could have tipped this information to the media as an anonymous source and saved himself the headache of being hunted around the world and ruining his own life.

Perhaps he likes the attention/fame/notoriety.

But it doesn't really matter if you can't see how he could have worked within the law; the fact is, he could have, and being in the position he was, he understood how he could have. As I've pointed out, and backed up with sources, had he done that and failed and then gone to the media, he would have a stronger case for his actions than he does now. As it is, he chose to simply bypass the law, and in doing so, is in other countries with laptops full of sensitive information. That's not something that I support or see as a positive thing for the country, ie: Americans.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps he likes the attention/fame/notoriety.

But it doesn't really matter if you can't see how he could have worked within the law; the fact is, he could have, and being in the position he was, he understood how he could have. As I've pointed out, and backed up with sources, had he done that and failed and then gone to the media, he would have a stronger case for his actions than he does now. As it is, he chose to simply bypass the law, and in doing so, is in other countries with laptops full of sensitive information. That's not something that I support or see as a positive thing for the country, ie: Americans.

It would have been a GIGANTIC mistake for Snowden to try to work within the law. Numerous other whistle blowers have tried this, and were threatened, prosecuted, fired, and harrassed.

Like Thomas Drake... He went up the chain of command, then to congress. He was prosecuted for espionage.

For example, when NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake tried to blow the whistle on fraud and corruption within the NSA – based upon the NSA spying on all Americans instead of targeting only suspected criminals – he was prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

Drake notes:

I differed as a whistleblower to Snowden only in this respect: in accordance with the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, I took my concerns up within the chain of command, to the very highest levels at the NSA, and then to Congress and the Department of Defense. I understand why Snowden has taken his course of action, because he’s been following this for years: he’s seen what’s happened to other whistleblowers like me.

By following protocol, you get flagged – just for raising issues. You’re identified as someone they don’t like, someone not to be trusted. I was exposed early on because I was a material witness for two 9/11 congressional investigations. In closed testimony, I told them everything I knew – about Stellar Wind, billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse, and the critical intelligence, which the NSA had but did not disclose to other agencies, preventing vital action against known threats. If that intelligence had been shared, it may very well have prevented 9/11.

But as I found out later, none of the material evidence I disclosed went into the official record. It became a state secret even to give information of this kind to the 9/11 investigation.

Or Russel Tice...

When NSA whistleblower Russel Tice (later a key source in the 2005 New York Times report that blew the lid off the Bush administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping) questioned spying on innocent Americans, NSA tried to have him labeled “crazy”, and fired him.

Or William Binney...

When the head of the NSA’s global digital communications program – William Binney – disclosed the fact that the U.S. was spying on everyone in the U.S. and storing the data forever, the Feds tried to scare him into shutting up:

[Numerous] FBI officers held a gun to Binney’s head as he stepped naked from the shower. He watched with his wife and youngest son as the FBI ransacked their home. Later Binney was separated from the rest of his family, and FBI officials pressured him to implicate one of the other complainants in criminal activity. During the raid, Binney attempted to report to FBI officials the crimes he had witnessed at NSA, in particular the NSA’s violation of the constitutional rights of all Americans. However, the FBI wasn’t interested in these disclosures. Instead, FBI officials seized Binney’s private computer, which to this day has not been returned despite the fact that he has not been charged with a crime.

NSA whistleblower J. Kirk Wiebe didn’t get anywhere through proper channels either.

John Kiriakou went to congress and blew the whistle on CIA torture. He was prosecuted for espionage.

The Government Accountability Project notes:

By communicating with the press, Snowden used the safest channel available to him to inform the public of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, government officials have been critical of him for not using internal agency channels – the same channels that have repeatedly failed to protect whistleblowers from reprisal in the past. In many cases, the critics are the exact officials who acted to exclude national security employees and contractors from the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012.

The bottom line is that WERE no real legal options available for Snowden. If he went up the chain of command he would have been muzzled and fired. If he went to congress he would have been prosecuted for espionage.

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Uh, yeah. Charging him with breaking the law = persecution.

:rolleyes:

Interfering with his bids for asylum is persecution. Members of your government have been calling for him to be killed, before there has even been a trial. That's persecution. So don't give me this crap about him being "charged" because the rhetoric has been much more violent and aggressive than that, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Interfering with his bids for asylum is persecution.

Hardly. If a mass murderer or terrorist who killed thousands were to seek asylum elsewhere, it wouldn't be "persecution" to try to prevent that from happening. You think being charged with a crime = persecution? :rolleyes:

Members of your government have been calling for him to be killed

First of all, I'd like a link to your source for that claim. Secondly, we have freedom of speech here in the U.S. One isn't considered "persecuted" here because someone speaks their mind.

before there has even been a trial. That's persecution.

No, it's not - since he would not be denied a trial because of what "some members of government are saying" - if it's even true.

So don't give me this crap about him being "charged" because the rhetoric has been much more violent and aggressive than that, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

In a country with free speech, "words" don't equal "persecution." So don't give me this crap about his being persecuted because he would be charged after breaking the law.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've explained it several times now. If what I said seems so naive to you, perhaps the problem lies with an inability to comprehend what's been said.

There are proper procedures to follow in the U.S. when one thinks the government has over extended its powers. It's not up to individuals to draw that conclusion. What a world that would be, if we all ignored the law because we have determined that it's an over extension of power. Somehow I don't see the 'taking the law into one's own hands' as productive.

So you're hoping for a 'brave Canadian' to come forward and bring Canada's spying techniques to light, to bring laptops full of classified information to countries like China and Russia, is that it? As an American, I'd love to see the Canadian government's reaction. :)

Seems to me you have no idea what's really going.

When people like James Clapper can simply lie to congress to protect the program without no consequences.

When the FISA court can create their own laws outside of the constitution, without no 3rd party oversight, and overextend American powers.

When the federal government has tortured other whistleblowers and sent them away for life, even when they've gone through the appropirate channels. Hell, they're even jailing journalists.

When the US illegelly forces national leader's planes to land, and completely breaks international rules on the right to seek asylum.

YES, of course Snowden should have obeyed the laws... in La La land. For those of us aware of the political realities, this was a no brainer.

I'm sorry you've been indoctrinated with propaganda that makes you connect any affiliation with China and Russia as a sure case of espionage. But the only evidence at hand is Snowden declaring that he has done no such thing. If you watched his interviews he's a proud American. But he doesn't place government above the constitution, and he's risked his life -- and ruined his very cushy livelihood -- for that belief. That's what a hero is. Someone who sacrifices his personal situation for the greater good.

I would be very proud of a Canadian if they informed our population of the government illegally spying on our population, and the world at large. That's once again, a no brainer.

Edited by ChristopherJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly. If a mass murderer or terrorist who killed thousands were to seek asylum elsewhere, it wouldn't be "persecution" to try to prevent that from happening. You think being charged with a crime = persecution? :rolleyes:

Am I supposed to take your arguments seriously? You want to draw a straight line between Snowden revealing that the US government, without the people's permission, has been spying on them to mass murderers and terrorists that kill thousands. Do I really need to tell you why they're not even remotely comparable?

First of all, I'd like a link to your source for that claim. Secondly, we have freedom of speech here in the U.S. One isn't considered "persecuted" here because someone speaks their mind.

So you'd like a source, but it doesn't matter because you have freedom of speech in the US?

So if someone publicly calls for your execution or the death of someone in your family, you're willing to stand up for their freedom of speech rights?

No, it's not - since he would not be denied a trial because of what "some members of government are saying" - if it's even true.

The issue isn't whether or not he would be denied a trial. Of course he would get a trial. The question is whether or not he would get a fair trial and that seems highly unlikely, as your government has already made its position perfectly clear on the matter. They've already convicted him in their minds and have been very vocal about as much. They revoked his passport without trial even. So I don't know what makes you think he would face a fair trial if he returned home. The United States gives people asylum, even if they would face trial in their home countries, if the United States believes that they would not receive a fair trial. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Snowden would be treated fairly were he to return.

In a country with free speech, "words" don't equal "persecution." So don't give me this crap about his being persecuted because he would be charged after breaking the law.

Please. What are you even arguing? "Words don't equal persecution" is nothing more than chopping down a straw man. The words of your government show that Snowden won't be treated fairly. That's what words do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Am I supposed to take your arguments seriously? You want to draw a straight line between Snowden revealing that the US government, without the people's permission, has been spying on them to mass murderers and terrorists that kill thousands. Do I really need to tell you why they're not even remotely comparable?

Do I need to tell you that they are both examples of breaking the law, and the accused not being "persecuted," but charged?

So you'd like a source, but it doesn't matter because you have freedom of speech in the US?

Yeah, I would like one. You got one or not?

So if someone publicly calls for your execution or the death of someone in your family, you're willing to stand up for their freedom of speech rights?

You're trying to make it into something it's not. Snowden was accused of a crime, and if he is found guilty of treason,then he could face the death penalty. "Could," but highly unlikely. That some think that he's guilty of treason and should face the death penalty is quite a different matter from someone calling for the execution or the death of someone in my family. What Snowden did opens him up to public opinion, so yes, freedom of speech applies. You might not like it, but it's not persecution.

The issue isn't whether or not he would be denied a trial. Of course he would get a trial. The question is whether or not he would get a fair trial and that seems highly unlikely, as your government has already made its position perfectly clear on the matter.

Oh, please. Your references to "the government" means nothing. The entirety of "the government" is enormous, and it doesn't matter a whit what many in "the government" think. That some within the government think he is guilty of treason doesn't mean that the accused won't get a fair trial - and whether or not you personally think he will get a fair trial also means nothing in regards to the law.

They've already convicted him in their minds and have been very vocal about as much.

Who is this "they" you speak of? The courts??

They revoked his passport without trial even.

Of course they revoked his passport without a train - because he has been charged with a crime and he fled from the country.

So I don't know what makes you think he would face a fair trial if he returned home.

Because unlike you, I don't always think negatively about everything that happens in the U.S.

The United States gives people asylum, even if they would face trial in their home countries, if the United States believes that they would not receive a fair trial.

Yes, it does. And your point would be??

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Snowden would be treated fairly were he to return.

That's your opinion. The U.S. is a free, democratic country where people are given a fair trial. If someone charged with an honor killing in Canada, for example, didn't think they would get a fair trial, and many agreed, that wouldn't mean they wouldn't - and it wouldn't mean they were being persecuted because they were charged and Canada wouldn't conclude that they have the "right" to seek asylum in another country.

Please. What are you even arguing? "Words don't equal persecution" is nothing more than chopping down a straw man. The words of your government show that Snowden won't be treated fairly. That's what words do.

You may feel that way, but you are wrong, as people in the U.S. are not tried and convicted and sentenced on "words." Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is considered "treason" in the US is mighty effed up, if this guy is a traitor to his country (while actually standing against unconstitutional acts) and yet nothing is likely to happen to other "traitors" in government like people responsible for this PRISM program, or members in the Bush admin who lied to their country to start a war, or people like Lyndon B. Johnson and Nixon who never spent a day in jail for their wrongs against their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Being a beautiful democratic country has nothing to do with being punished for breaking the law.

What Manning and Snowden did was criminal in every respect. They might think themselves justified, but most of their fellow citizens disagree, and so do the laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

What is considered "treason" in the US is mighty effed up, if this guy is a traitor to his country (while actually standing against unconstitutional acts) and yet nothing is likely to happen to other "traitors" in government like people responsible for this PRISM program, or members in the Bush admin who lied to their country to start a war, or people like Lyndon B. Johnson and Nixon who never spent a day in jail for their wrongs against their country.

He hasn't been convicted of being a traitor, has he? - and of course that charge would be in regards to whether another country had access to any sensitive information that he had on the laptops he took into China, Russia, where ever he ends up. But then, he hasn't even been charged with treason.

So how many Canadian government officials have been charged for their "traitorous" acts? How many have spent jail time for their "wrongs against their country?"

And why isn't Canada offering asylum to Snowden?

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So? He wasn't willing to risk that? He wasn't willing to stand up to his bosses and risk being fired? He wasn't willing to send passionate notes to the government overseers telling them this was wrong? Apparently. All he was willing to do was steal a pile of data and bring it to China and then Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Laws are changed in congress by elected representatives. If anyone had an issue with those laws they were certainly passed through a democratic and public process and people certainly could have protested at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...