Edward Snowden

[bush_cheney2004]

No theres nothing wrong with it what-so-ever. People SHOULD speak up when they see things they think are wrong. Its the morally right thing to do no matter what the law says.

It is "morally right" to commit crimes and flee the country to avoid prosecution ?

[GostHacked]

It is "morally right" to commit crimes and flee the country to avoid prosecution ?

Morally justified and obligated to protect Americans from enemies foreign and domestic.

[dre]

That goes for those criticizing Snowden too, right? - Those who think he's jeopardized U.S. security and/or think he's hurting relations between countries should speak up, because it's the morally right thing to do.

Yes... If you actually believe all that stuff, then you should certainly feel free to say that.

Everyone has the right to do what they see fit; doesn't mean there won't be consequences as a result.

Is your position that he should have stayed quiet even if he believed the government was violating the US constitution?

Edited July 2, 2013 by dre

[Albert_Einstein]

That goes for those criticizing Snowden too, right? - Those who think he's jeopardized U.S. security and/or think he's hurting relations between countries should speak up, because it's the morally right thing to do. Those who think he's hurting the citizens within the countries he's seeking asylum in should speak up about that, too, because it's the morally right thing to do - while his jeopardizing their well-being is a rather selfish act, and not the morally right thing to do.

Those who think he's jeopardized U.S. security might try to think for themselves and imagine what actual harm has been done. As far as I can tell, all he's done is embarrassed your country for its paranoid pursuit of security. He's also shone an uncomfortable light on the type of spying that is going on. Lots of people are shocked but not many are surprised by his revelations. Maybe shining a light on things will be healthy for everyone involved.

Charging him with breaking the law under the circumstances, giving him his day in court, is also the morally right thing to do when one thinks he broke the law and is jeopardizing the country by having done so.

Laws are often unjust and deserve to be broken. The world owes a debt of gratitude to people like Snowden who are brave enough to follow their convictions. He's done so in a non-violent manner and if he's caused any country actual harm, it has yet to be demonstrated. You seem to take it for granted that he would get a fair trial but the actual experiences of people accused of this type of crime suggest otherwise. The evidence would most likely be deemed secret under national security laws and nobody would ever hear from him again. You think I'm being paranoid? Here is what Amnesty International has to say on the topic:

Senior US officials have already condemned Snowden without a trial, labelling him both guilty and a traitor, raising serious questions as to whether he’d receive a fair trial. Likewise the US authorities move to charge Snowden under the Espionage Act could leave him with no provision to launch a public interest whistle-blowing defence under US law.

Everyone has the right to do what they see fit; doesn't mean there won't be consequences as a result.

In this case, the consequences are imposed by those who have power. That doesn't make them just or right.

I have to roll my eyes at Snowden's claim that Obama is messing with is "right" to "seek asylum." That right exists for the purpose of escaping persecution. There is a huge difference between being charged with a crime and having your day in court and "persecution." So very many people these days, it seems, are a victim.

You should be rolling your eyes at your own statement, which is naive beyond any reasonable measure of intelligence and logic. You think your precious constitution protects people but your leaders twist the rules like dough being made into pretzels. When it comes to matters of "security", your judicial oversight isn't a watchdog, it's an aging, toothless beagle, rolling over to be scratched.

Most political dissidents are legally prosecuted under the laws that prevail in that country at the time. It was not that long in historical terms that MLK Junior had to disobey unjust laws (and he was executed for his trouble). Just because it's a law doesn't make it just. It's up to citizens of conscience to challenge the laws they believe are unjust and it's up to all of us to think independently and assess which laws should be repealed.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Albert_Einstein

[GostHacked]

No there is something wrong with it, he signed a nice little document that stated in one form or another that he will not divulge any secret/top-secret information he broke the law so its wrong... I doubt any nation is surprised that the US is spying on them mainly because they themselves are doing the exact same thing in their own nations plus on US soil as well.

I'd say he broke his terms of employment and not the law. The information he had I highyl suspect was not top secret.

The bit about spying on other nations should be a given by everyone. Yes countries spy on each other. The real thing with this is that the US government said they were NOT spying on Americans IN the USA , which in fact they are.

[Guest American Woman]

I'd say he broke his terms of employment and not the law. The information he had I highyl suspect was not top secret.

Even his father recognizes that he broke the law, in spite of what you'd say. Furthermore, you don't have a clue as to what information he has.

[GostHacked]

Even his father recognizes that he broke the law, in spite of what you'd say. Furthermore, you don't have a clue as to what information he has.

Maybe you missed the part where I was speculating. Something wrong with speculation? You know, to help further the discussion?

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe you missed the part where I was speculating. Something wrong with speculation? You know, to help further the discussion?

Speculation based on nothing, much less against established fact, doesn't exactly "help" further the discussion. He broke the law. That's been established. How is " [your] saying" he didn't break the law furthering the discussion in any constructive way??

[GostHacked]

Speculation based on nothing, much less against established fact, doesn't exactly "help" further the discussion.

If you don't want to participate, you can simply stop posting.

He broke the law. That's been established.

No, he is CHARGED with breaking the law. Until he has a day in court and a trial, he is innocent until proven guilty. That is how your justice system is supposed to work.

But hey, please be pissed at Snowden for revealing the NSA spyprogram which is focused on Americans more than anything else. It's like some would simply rather plug their ears instead of listening to what is really happening.

How is " [your] saying" he didn't break the law furthering the discussion in any constructive way??

I say he did not, you say he did, let's discuss that. Unless you simply want to continue trashing everything I post, I can accomodate there as well.

[Topaz]

The question is, how many times have governments broken the law, international law, especially?

[Guest American Woman]

If you don't want to participate, you can simply stop posting.

No thank you. I'll participate in the way I see fit; in this instance, it was to point out how pointless what "[you] say" is in this regard as he DID break the law.

No, he is CHARGED with breaking the law. Until he has a day in court and a trial, he is innocent until proven guilty. That is how your justice system is supposed to work.

Oh, he broke the law. There's no question about that. As I said, even his dad recognizes that. His day in court isn't to determine whether or not he "broke the law;" courts are about more than that. For example, a person going 75 MPH in a school zone broke the law, they are not "innocent until proven guilty." A driver with an alcohol level above the legal limit broke the law. Their "day in court" isn't about determining "guilt." They broke the law. Sometimes after an investigation a person who the authorities think is guilty of the crime are charged, and they indeed are "innocent until proven guilty." However, there's no question that Snowden is the person who broke the law in this instance.

But hey, please be pissed at Snowden for revealing the NSA spyprogram which is focused on Americans more than anything else. It's like some would simply rather plug their ears instead of listening to what is really happening.

I would love to be able to "plug my ears" to all the nonsense being spewed; if all I had to listen to is ""what is really happening," I would be a happy camper. So here's a hint: saying you would say he didn't break the law isn't "what is really happening."

I say he did not, you say he did, let's discuss that. Unless you simply want to continue trashing everything I post, I can accomodate there as well.

You don't seem to get it. What "[you] say" isn't debatable. He broke the law. There's nothing to discuss there.

[bush_cheney2004]

The question is, how many times have governments broken the law, international law, especially?

Whenever it is in their interest to do so.

[GostHacked]

No thank you. I'll participate in the way I see fit; in this instance, it was to point out how pointless what "[you] say" is in this regard as he DID break the law.

Ahh,, so I AM furthering the conversation, thanks for the confirmation.

No, he is charged with breaking the law, by your own justice system, he is innocent until proven guilty.

First you need to be charged with a crime.

Then you go to court and have the evidence present against you.

Jury determines verdict.

Even your bit about drunk driving,

[quopte]I would love to be able to "plug my ears" to all the nonsense being spewed; if all I had to listen to is ""what is really happening," I would be a happy camper. So here's a hint: saying you would say he didn't break the law isn't "what is really happening."

Ignore button is down, and to the right, down and to the right, down and to the right.

You don't seem to get it. What "[you] say" isn't debatable. He broke the law. There's nothing to discuss there.

I see what you are saying, I feel differently.

[GostHacked]

Whenever it is in their interest to do so.

Why have laws then if the government picks and chooses where and when to be in violation of the very laws they create and are tasked with upholding the law?

[Guest American Woman]

I see what you are saying, I feel differently.

Good. Because Snowden broke the law. There's no question about that. Just as there was never any question as to whether or not Vince Li broke the law. Cutting someone's head off is against the law, so Li's "day in court" wasn't to determine whether or not he broke the law.

Edited July 3, 2013 by American Woman

[Shady]

Of course he broke that law. Anyone denying that isn't be intellectually honest. It's completely and utterly absurd to suggest he didn't break the law.

[GostHacked]

Since the claim is that we all do NOT know what information he gave to other countries, all of this is pure speculation on what that information is.

Do any of you know exactly what Snowden allegedly gave to other countries? Let's hear it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course he broke that law. Anyone denying that isn't be intellectually honest. It's completely and utterly absurd to suggest he didn't break the law.

Yes, but what Snowden may or may not have done becomes secondary to the larger NSA information security protocol(s). Regardless of what happens to/with Snowden, there is already an intensive effort to define what he could have compromised in the way of access, data, and more importantly, collection methods & sources. Snowden probably created even more contract work and billable hours for spook consultants.

[Guest American Woman]

Since the claim is that we all do NOT know what information he gave to other countries, all of this is pure speculation on what that information is.

Do any of you know exactly what Snowden allegedly gave to other countries? Let's hear it.

Good grief. If he gave classified information, who would come forth and repeat what it was?? As I already said, no one is going to be stupid enough to do that. You think the U.S. is going to start telling the world what information Snowden was privy to? You think the country that he may have given such information to is going to repeat it for the benefit of the world?

I repeat what Putin said, what condition he gave in order to for Snowden to be granted asylum: "If he [snowden] wants to stay here, there is one condition: He must stop his activities aimed at inflicting damage on our American partners...."

Even Russia recognizes that Snowden is inflicting damage on the U.S.

[GostHacked]

Good grief. If he gave classified information, who would come forth and repeat what it was??

Good grief, then you and I are both speculating on what the contents were on the laptops.

Even Russia recognizes that Snowden is inflicting damage on the U.S.

The only damage done here was from the NSA for spying on Americans to begin with.

[Guest American Woman]

Good grief, then you and I are both speculating on what the contents were on the laptops.

I've never speculated at all. I haven't been specific.

The only damage done here was from the NSA for spying on Americans to begin with.

That's your opinion, and again, based on no actual knowledge. The U.S. and Russia disagree. So do others. The people of Ecuador, for eample, fear that their livelihood has been damaged by negative feelings towards Ecuador. Your view of "damage" appears to be very narrow, and again, based on no actual knowledge. Edited July 3, 2013 by American Woman

[dre]

Good. Because Snowden broke the law. There's no question about that. Just as there was never any question as to whether or not Vince Li broke the law. Cutting someone's head off is against the law, so Li's "day in court" wasn't to determine whether or not he broke the law.

Actually there might be some question about that. Failure to honor an employment NDA is a civil matter, not a criminal one. So if hes going to charged it will be under the surveillance act. Now if all he has done, is out the government for breaking laws ITSELF (criminal acts like hacking computer networks, lying to congress and the senate, and possibly violating the constitution) then whistle-blower laws might also come in to play.

So if you wanted to know the likely outcome of a court challenge, you need to read the 4th amendment, the surveillance act, and the recent whistle blower legislation.

Or... you can just keep stomping your feet and proclaiming "THERES NO QUESTION! THERES NO QUESTION!"

[Shady]

I've never speculated at all. I haven't been specific. That's your opinion, and again, based on no actual knowledge. The U.S. and Russia disagree. So do others. The people of Ecuador, for eample, fear that their livelihood has been damaged by negative feelings towards Ecuador. Your view of "damage" appears to be very narrow, and again, based on no actual knowledge.

I wouldn't waste your time with the Edward Snowden fanboys. They're detached from reality, therefore impossible actually discuss anything with.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually there might be some question about that. Failure to honor an employment NDA is a civil matter, not a criminal one. So if hes going to charged it will be under the surveillance act. Now if all he has done, is out the government for breaking laws ITSELF (criminal acts like hacking computer networks, lying to congress and the senate, and possibly violating the constitution) then whistle-blower laws might also come in to play.

Ummm, yeah, he did break the law.

[GostHacked]

I wouldn't waste your time with the Edward Snowden fanboys. They're detached from reality, therefore impossible actually discuss anything with.

So you create a thread on Snowden and then poo poo the replies you get about Snowden saying they are 'Snowden Fanboys'.

Sorry, next time I will try to derail the thread and talk about something else.