Edward Snowden

[dre]

Hey, I’m opposed to domestic surveillance on principle, but I understand that the proliferation of electronic intelligence gathering (SIGNIT, satellites, drones etc) is a direct response to the gutting of the American intelligence community’s manned portion starting under Bush 41’s administration with the passing of the Intelligence Authorization Act by the Democratic controlled House and Senate as a political reaction to the Contras, followed by the near complete gutting under the Clinton administration of the CIA……..

In essence, they near got rid of all those folks that just spent a decade in Afghanistan helping the locals bump off the Commies…….Who would have thought a decade later those very people might have been valuable…..As such, the Americans were forced to play catch-up, and what better way then doing that, then by changing laws that limit what the remaining organs of the intelligence agencies can and can’t do.

I think these people just use war as an excuse to do things they have always wanted to do, because the fear-dumb population will let them do it.

The espionage act itself was supposed to be a temporary measure to help win world war one. Politicians even at the time knew it was a gross violation of free speech.

[dre]

So, it was not illegal then.........The American people might be pissed off, yet starting with Carter and the signing into law of FISA, the American people elected their leadership, from both sides of the aisle……..And from both the Democrats and Republicans, the “reaction” has been mixed from both parties rank and file, one of support or disdain….

Its neither legal or legal until theres a constitutional challenge. Just because the government makes a law doesnt mean its legal, and government legislation is struck down by the high courts pretty often.

And the beauty of keeping a program secret is that if nobody knows about it, there wont BE any constitutional challenge. This is the whole problem with these types of programs.

But now thanx to Snowden there is multiple legal challenges to these laws, and there WILL be a ruling sooner or later. We also have pressure from parts of the legislative branch to reign these programs in and make them more transparent and accountable.

Its remarkable what the guy has achieved, and he paid dearly for it. Americans owe this guy big time. If he hadnt blown the whistle then these programs would have gotten more and more intrusive over time, and Americans would have ended up with a true surveillance state, and theres no such thing as democracy in a surveillance state.

[Guest Derek L]

I think these people just use war as an excuse to do things they have always wanted to do, because the fear-dumb population will let them do it.

And why is that? What fosters the mens rea in your opinion?

The espionage act itself was supposed to be a temporary measure to help win world war one. Politicians even at the time knew it was a gross violation of free speech.

Perhaps, but a country implementing restraints onto how itself conducts espionage is clearly at a disadvantage to those countries that don’t…..

[Guest American Woman]

But now thanx to Snowden there is multiple legal challenges to these laws, and there WILL be a ruling sooner or later. We also have pressure from parts of the legislative branch to reign these programs in and make them more transparent and accountable.

What's remarkable is that you have concluded that the government wouldn't have reacted the same way if he had brought this information to them legally or without running off to China and Russia.

Its remarkable what the guy has achieved, and he paid dearly for it.

That's he's "paid dearly for it" is his own fault for handling it the way he did.

Americans owe this guy big time.

Americans will feel as they do about it. As I've pointed out several times now, Binney feels that he may have behaved in a traitorous way. I know of no traitor who "Americans" felt they "owed big time."

If he hadnt blown the whistle then these programs would have gotten more and more intrusive over time, and Americans would have ended up with a true surveillance state, and theres no such thing as democracy in a surveillance state.

Who's to say there wouldn't have been the same reaction if he had disclosed the information legally or without jeopardizing U.S. security and foreign relations? Edited August 11, 2013 by American Woman

[Shady]

Ethics prompted Snowden to reveal the extent of the program. In a sense he did it for you AW. He did it for you, and all your fellow Americans.

Yeah AW. And then he took several laptops full of classified information, and brought them to China and Russia. He did that for you AW. He did it for you, and all your fellow Americans.

[Shady]

Saint Snowden!

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah AW. And then he took several laptops full of classified information, and brought them to China and Russia. He did that for you AW. He did it for you, and all your fellow Americans.

Exactly; and now Obama has cancelled his meeting with Putin next month, which also makes me so thankful! What a guy.

[Shady]

Exactly; and now Obama has cancelled his meeting with Putin next month, which also makes me so thankful! What a guy.

He's kinda like Jesus. Jesus died for our sins. Saint Snowden sacrificed himself for our liberties.

[dre]

Who's to say there wouldn't have been the same reaction if he had disclosed the information legally or without jeopardizing U.S. security and foreign relations?

These are reactions to the American PEOPLE knowing about the program. There IS no legal way for him to disclose this to the public. And there is no other real legal routes. A whole host of surveillance whistle blowers have gone up the chain of command and tried testifying before congress etc. Most of them were charged with "espionage" and the rest had their testimony buried.

What's remarkable is that you have concluded that the government wouldn't have reacted the same way if he had brought this information to them legally or without running off to China and Russia.

ROFLMAO. The government already HAD the information. Its their program. That would be like... reporting a rape... to the rapist. Probably not gonna work huh?

Edited August 11, 2013 by dre

[Guest American Woman]

These are reactions to the American PEOPLE knowing about the program. There IS no legal way for him to disclose this to the public. And there is no other real legal routes.

Yep. There was/is.

ROFLMAO. The government already HAD the information. Its their program. That would be like... reporting a rape... to the rapist. Probably not gonna work huh?

Yet they are looking into it now. According to you. So you think an illegal act resulted in what a legal act would not? To quote your oh-so-intelligent response, ROFLMAO.

[dre]

He's kinda like Jesus. Jesus died for our sins. Saint Snowden sacrificed himself for our liberties.

No just a guy that witnessed something he though was wrong, and had the courage to stand up. Nothing saintly about it.

[dre]

Yep. There was/is.

No there quite simply isnt. The "legal route" is go up the chain of command, or congressional intelligence commitees. Not the public. The only way to go to the public is through the press.

Yet they are looking into it now. According to you. So you think an illegal act resulted in what a legal act would not? To quote your oh-so-intelligent response, ROFLMAO.

The only reason they are looking into it now, is because its public knoweldge and they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

We had multiple previous attempts to disclose this stuff by other NSA whistleblowers using the "legal route" and nothing happened. The whistle blowers were charged with espionage, or their testimony was simply buried. You can keep ignoring this if you want.

Or you can provide the example I asked for of a single intelligence whistleblower in history who went through the "legal route" and had the kind of success Snowden has had in bringing attention to the issue. Of course you cant which is why you keep ignoring the history of NSA whistleblowers, and the total absense of any legal route.

[Guest American Woman]

He's kinda like Jesus. Jesus died for our sins. Saint Snowden sacrificed himself for our liberties.

I think you may find this to be a good column regarding the repercussions of Snowden's actions. As stated, Snowden should be voluntarily coming home, facing the music, as others have done. And no, they aren't all in prison, much less for life.

Perhaps the best analogy is Daniel Ellsberg. In June 1971, having leaked to The New York Times the Pentagon Papers detailing the sordid history of the United States in the Vietnam War, Ellsberg, a Pentagon consultant, surrendered to the United States attorney in Boston. That morning, he said, "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." Ellsberg eventually won his freedom when it was shown that his own freedoms had been contravened by an out-of-control federal government.

Regarding the summit meeting that was cancelled:

Edward Snowden should man up and surrender. Since he is the proximate cause of the breakup of the one-day summit that was to take place between presidents Obama and Putin next month...

Neither president, at this point, is prepared to lose face. No third party mediator is clearly apparent whose good offices might smooth the way. Snowden certainly didn't cause all the short circuits in U.S.-Russian relations, but too many issues critical to too many people around the world are riding on this get-together to let this opportunity slip away. From an end to the bloodshed in Syria, Iran on the brink, to a missile defense shield, trade and human rights — all were likely to be on the table for what could still be an historic session. Instead, they are being held hostage to the whims of one man fleeing justice.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/08/snowden-russia-obama-putin-nsa-column/2632365/

[Smallc]

He should man up? He's given up his life, but doesn't think he deserves to go to prison. I'm not sure I disagree with him.

[dre]

I think you may find this to be a good column regarding the repercussions of Snowden's actions. As stated, Snowden should be voluntarily coming home, facing the music, as others have done. And no, they aren't all in prison, much less for life.

Perhaps the best analogy is Daniel Ellsberg. In June 1971, having leaked to The New York Times the Pentagon Papers detailing the sordid history of the United States in the Vietnam War, Ellsberg, a Pentagon consultant, surrendered to the United States attorney in Boston. That morning, he said, "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision." Ellsberg eventually won his freedom when it was shown that his own freedoms had been contravened by an out-of-control federal government.

Thousands of people died because Daniel Elsberg went through the "proper channels". He also said there is no chance he would have surrendered to authorities in todays America. To t his day he said he did the WRONG thing.

Heres what he has to say...

Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who in 1971 leaked the top-secret Pentagon Papers detailing the history of U.S. policy in Vietnam, tells NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday that unlike Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, he "did it the wrong way" by trying first to go through proper channels — a delay that he says cost thousands of lives.

There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).

I hope Snowden’s revelations will spark a movement to rescue our democracy, but he could not be part of that movement had he stayed here. There is zero chance that he would be allowed out on bail if he returned now and close to no chance that, had he not left the country, he would have been granted bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell like Bradley Manning, incommunicado.

Edited August 11, 2013 by dre

[dre]

He should man up? He's given up his life, but doesn't think he deserves to go to prison. I'm not sure I disagree with him.

Well thats exact why shes parroting the silly "man up" talking point. She WANTS him to go to prison.

[GostHacked]

Yeah AW. And then he took several laptops full of classified information, and brought them to China and Russia. He did that for you AW. He did it for you, and all your fellow Americans.

People would have bitched about the location he ended up no matter where he ended up. Could have been Vanuatu and people still would have complained. Actually he did the whole world a damn favor.

Classy Shady, this gives you a nice opportunity to bash Obama some, and yet, silence. Nothing but apologetic silence.

[Shady]

He should man up? He's given up his life, but doesn't think he deserves to go to prison. I'm not sure I disagree with him.

I definitely disagree with him. He should have never left the country. He should have never taken several laptops with classified information to China and Russia. He should have stay and faced the music. He'd have a huge level of support if he had done that, and I think that the government would not have thrown the so-called book at him. He may have had to serve a short period of jail time, and he'd be a cult hero. Making tens of thousands of dollars per speech on the political speaking curcuit. Not to mention millions in a book, if he wanted to pursuit that course. Hell, he'd probably be given his own cable news show.

[Smallc]

I definitely disagree with him. He should have never left the country. He should have never taken several laptops with classified information to China and Russia.

Lets get this straight here - he went to the Hong Kong SAR, not mainland China....and he didn't take the info because he wanted to share it, he took it because he didn't want it to be suppressed. His first choice was Iceland...but that wouldn't work.

He should have stay and faced the music.

And end up like everyone else who has leaked information of tried? I think I agree with him.

He'd have a huge level of support if he had done that, and I think that the government would not have thrown the so-called book at him. He may have had to serve a short period of jail time, and he'd be a cult hero.

Or, he could have been put in jail for say...90 years.

[GostHacked]

I definitely disagree with him. He should have never left the country. He should have never taken several laptops with classified information to China and Russia. He should have stay and faced the music. He'd have a huge level of support if he had done that, and I think that the government would not have thrown the so-called book at him. He may have had to serve a short period of jail time, and he'd be a cult hero. Making tens of thousands of dollars per speech on the political speaking curcuit. Not to mention millions in a book, if he wanted to pursuit that course. Hell, he'd probably be given his own cable news show.

Ask Manning what a short jail term is. This is how whistle blowers are treated, and you are falling for it and treating him the same way, as a criminal, all while apologizing for the spy program. Many would still bash Snowden instead of going after the real issue which is the spy program. I don't really expect that to change as some people are just so conditioned to look at the insignificant stuff while ignoring a whole damn heard of elephants in the room.

I just don't get it. So as I said in another thread, blind apologetics or trolls, I still can't figure out which one it is .

[Guest American Woman]

I definitely disagree with him. He should have never left the country. He should have never taken several laptops with classified information to China and Russia.

No, he shouldn't have left the country, but he did leave, so now's the time to "man up and surrender himself," as he can see the problems he's creating. Quite frankly, I don't see how he can continue to sit in Russia just to try to save his own butt from what may or may not happen.

He should have stay and faced the music. He'd have a huge level of support if he had done that, and I think that the government would not have thrown the so-called book at him.

I agree.

[Guest American Woman]

He should man up? He's given up his life, but doesn't think he deserves to go to prison. I'm not sure I disagree with him.

Whether or not he'd go to prison is an unknown at this time, and I do believe he could have increased the likelihood of that happening by running off, but he is jeopardizing some serious issues with his refusal to surrender himself. That much is known. Edited August 11, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

Whether or not he'd go to prison is an unknown at this time, and I do believe he could have increased the likelihood of that happening by running off, but he is jeopardizing some serious issues with his refusal to surrender himself. That much is known.

Problem with this bit of silliness is that the last leaker got 90 years in prison. And he sat in prison for three years just waiting for the trial to start.

No... its perfectly clear that returning to the US to face the music would be an act of monumental stupidity, and slapstick adventure in abject idiocy. The only reason you keep saying this is because you WANT him in prison.

Smart thing for him to do is wait in Russia for a while until he can slip away to somewhere with a nice climate, beautiful women and beaches, and no extradition treaty with the US. Then he has at least a CHANCE to have a good life. Maybe some time in the future the political climate in the US might make it possible for him to return to face a fair trial, or a pardon, but certainly not any time soon.

Like Ellsberg said... The US today is a very different kind of place than it was when he leaked the pentagon papers.

[ReeferMadness]

Its neither legal or legal until theres a constitutional challenge. Just because the government makes a law doesnt mean its legal, and government legislation is struck down by the high courts pretty often.

And the beauty of keeping a program secret is that if nobody knows about it, there wont BE any constitutional challenge. This is the whole problem with these types of programs.

But now thanx to Snowden there is multiple legal challenges to these laws, and there WILL be a ruling sooner or later. We also have pressure from parts of the legislative branch to reign these programs in and make them more transparent and accountable.

Its remarkable what the guy has achieved, and he paid dearly for it. Americans owe this guy big time. If he hadnt blown the whistle then these programs would have gotten more and more intrusive over time, and Americans would have ended up with a true surveillance state, and theres no such thing as democracy in a surveillance state.

We all owe this guy big time. The NSA isn't just spying on Americans, they're spying on all of us. And all of us need to wake up to what has being going on. Since 9/11 gave control-freaks everywhere the excuse to step up spying and control of the population, all of our liberties are at risk.

[ReeferMadness]

No, he shouldn't have left the country, but he did leave, so now's the time to "man up and surrender himself," as he can see the problems he's creating. Quite frankly, I don't see how he can continue to sit in Russia just to try to save his own butt from what may or may not happen.

I agree.

Bradley Manning would no doubt see things differently. As does Daniel Ellsberg.