Edward Snowden

[Guest American Woman]

There would be NO way he could reveal this info legally by going through the proper channels.

How would you know that?? There is a legal channel to follow for such disclosures, and he didn't even try.

[Signals.Cpl]

It's strange a whistle blower gets this much attention while the real issue is the NSA. Are people easily distracted by the real issue and go after Snowden's character?

He is getting so much attention because he himself and wikileaks made sure to get the attention, he started it and the media picked up the story and ran with it thats why he is getting so much attention.

There is no legal way Snowden could have revealed this information. But that would be depending on what was in that NDA he signed in order to do the job he did.

That is pretty self evident because if he could the whole security clearance would be nothing but a waste of time. I suspect it laid out all that he would face if he did release information to a third party without proper authorization.

Ok, I'll even say that he DID illegally gave information to a foreign country (does not matter which one at this point), but that still does not take anything away of what he exposed.

I agree, it should not take away from anything he exposed but he is taking away from the bigger problem by his theatrics.

And the focus should remain on the NSA and the spy program. A huge opportunity to call these idiots out has presented itself. Why not take advantage of it?

Again, the guy's theatrics are forcing attention away from the issue at hand... I agree that the NSA should be held accountable but as long as the people are focused on the guy it likely wont happen. If he thought that this was worth destroying his life over then by all means he should go and release it but then he should face the music, instead he is trying this whole international man of mystery thing which is distracting from the very thing he might have wanted to draw attention to.

Well see there is this little snag where the government is able to change the laws to suit it's needs. So all this warrant-less surveillance taking place is now all within the letter of the law. It would not have been legal a decade a go.

And in a democracy the government can be changed by the people, yes it sounds naive but looking at some other places and types of government throughout the world I can tell you that it is true. the fact is he signed a contract and then broke it, in fact I have seen articles that suggest he intended to leak the documents before he got the job, he was seeking out the intelligence with the intention of releasing it.

There would be NO way he could reveal this info legally by going through the proper channels.

Says who? Did he try to do that? Did he pass his issues up the CoC? If all that failed did he bring it to the attention of the proper elected government officials? Those in the committees who oversee the organization?

If and thats a big if, he went through the proper chain of events to get his issues across and othign happened he might be more justified at leaking the intelligence and only that relevant to the issue, he would still be guilty of breaking the law but he should by all accounts be treated differently, punished for breaking the law but take into consideration that he tried everything else and nothing worked.

[jacee]

but then he should face the music,}

The gov wants to punish him for releasing info that they're spying on the citizens they represent, using taxpayer money.

When governments turn against the people they're elected to represent, exposing them is patriotism. It's the errant government ops that should face the music.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's the errant government ops that should face the music.

It does....in things called elections. I believe in Canada it is called a "confidence vote" or "getting turfed".

[jacee]

It does....in things called elections. I believe in Canada it is called a "confidence vote" or "getting turfed".

In Canada, some low level 'renegade' operative would be isolated and 'encouraged' to take the fall.

I'm not hearing of any investigation, police or otherwise, into whether the US gov ops committed illegal acts and if so, on whose orders.

[Signals.Cpl]

The gov wants to punish him for releasing info that they're spying on the citizens they represent, using taxpayer money.

When governments turn against the people they're elected to represent, exposing them is patriotism. It's the errant government ops that should face the music.

The government wants to punish him for releasing secret information, it is irrelevant what the information was but what is relevant is that he released it. If he is not prosecuted for his crimes then the security clearance system means nothing. We go after the criminals because thats how the system works, cant let you go just because you might have done something worthy in the process.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not hearing of any investigation, police or otherwise, into whether the US gov ops committed illegal acts and if so, on whose orders.

That's because it's all legal like....created by the Congress and affirmed by the courts. Somebody with standing will have to bring suit if they want to prove otherwise.

[jacee]

The government wants to punish him for releasing secret information, it is irrelevant what the information was but what is relevant is that he released it. If he is not prosecuted for his crimes then the security clearance system means nothing. We go after the criminals because thats how the system works, cant let you go just because you might have done something worthy in the process.

The criminals are the government violating the trust of the people, violating the Constitution - ie, the law.

You paint a simplistic scenario where government is always right. In this case, clearly the government was wrong to spy on citizens.

[jacee]

That's because it's all legal like....created by the Congress and affirmed by the courts. Somebody with standing will have to bring suit if they want to prove otherwise.

I would think if the gov voted itself the power to spy on citizens, then a constitutional challenge of that legislation would be in order. Edited July 6, 2013 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

I would think if the gov voted itself the power to spy on citizens, then a constitutional challenge of that legislation would be in order.

Think as you please....Lincoln and FDR needed no such legislation. Constitutional challenges failed in the courts.

Edited July 6, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Signals.Cpl]

The criminals are the government violating the trust of the people, violating the Constitution - ie, the law.

As well as Snowden. See its similar, the government may have broken the law with the excuse that they were protecting Americans, a noble cause. Snowden broke the law to "protect" Americans... how do you say one should be punished and the other not? Either both are wrong or both are right... as two wrongs don't make a right, just because he feels justified does not mean he has a right to leak information he broke the law and he should be punished, if the law was broken by US intelligence agencies then they too should be punished one way or another.

You paint a simplistic scenario where government is always right. In this case, clearly the government was wrong to spy on citizens.

No, I paint a scenario where there is a right and a wrong, and in this case both sides may be in the wrong. I am not arguing as to the legitimacy of the actions taken by the US intelligence agencies, what I am arguing is that he(Snowden) is as much a criminal as the people who initiated and ran the programs in question.

[jacee]

Think as you please....Lincoln and FDR needed no such legislation. Constitutional challenges failed in the courts.

Well this one hasn't been heard yet.

Funny how Republicans are keeping quiet, supporting Obama's violations of people's Constitutional rights.

Edited July 6, 2013 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

Well this one hasn't been heard yet.

Funny how Republicans are keeping quiet, supporting Obama's violations of people's Constitutional rights.

How do you know it's a violation of people's Constitutional rights? Has the Supreme Court made a ruling that I'm unaware of?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well this one hasn't been heard yet.

Funny how Republicans are keeping quiet, supporting Obama's violations of people's Constitutional rights.

Republicans are Americans too, just like the Democrats who are in power, "violating" people's "Constitutional rights". I wonder why some Canadians are so interested ?

[jacee]

As well as Snowden. See its similar, the government may have broken the law with the excuse that they were protecting Americans, a noble cause. Snowden broke the law to "protect" Americans... how do you say one should be punished and the other not? Either both are wrong or both are right... as two wrongs don't make a right, just because he feels justified does not mean he has a right to leak information he broke the law and he should be punished, if the law was broken by US intelligence agencies then they too should be punished one way or another.

No, I paint a scenario where there is a right and a wrong, and in this case both sides may be in the wrong. I am not arguing as to the legitimacy of the actions taken by the US intelligence agencies, what I am arguing is that he(Snowden) is as much a criminal as the people who initiated and ran the programs in question.

If the laws that Snowden allegedly violated are themselves illegal, then Snowden did nothing illegal. The laws and the actions of government's spies must be deemed legal ie, constitutional, BEFORE Snowden can be prosecuted.

the-governments-spying-is-not-as-bad-as-the-whistleblower-said-its-worse

***Schneier, the author and security expert, said it doesnt really matter how Prism works, technically. Just assume the government collects everything, he said.

He said it doesnt matter what the government and the companies say, either . No one is telling the truth.

Edited July 6, 2013 by jacee

[GostHacked]

How would you know that?? There is a legal channel to follow for such disclosures, and he didn't even try.

So what are the legal channels he can go through in order to bring this to the front? I'd love to hear them.

How do you know it's a violation of people's Constitutional rights? Has the Supreme Court made a ruling that I'm unaware of?

How do you know it's NOT a violation. Let's hear it!

[dre]

How do you know it's a violation of people's Constitutional rights? Has the Supreme Court made a ruling that I'm unaware of?

Well theres many decades of jurisprudence that demonstrates that warrantless wiretapping is not legal, and the 4th Amendment isnt really that ambiguous.

The government cannot constitutionally sieze your communications without a warrant.

Heres the interesting thing though... It will be hard for Americans to mount a constitutional challenge because nobody knows who has standing. Unless the government tries to use some of this information to prosecute someone, it may be very hard to get this before the courts.

The government and their lawyers may have found a way to circumvent the constitution indefinately.

[Signals.Cpl]

If the laws that Snowden allegedly violated are themselves illegal, then Snowden did nothing illegal.

Leaking secret information is illegal, irrelevant what the information is or wether you agree. Its the information he leakes thats breaking the law its the fact that he leaked it.

The laws and the actions of government's spies must be deemed legal ie, constitutional, BEFORE Snowden can be prosecuted.

Again, what the government agencies and what Snowden did are two completely separate issues, if the claims are true then the people responsible should be punished but that does not mean he should not be punished for his crimes. If he is not prosecuted then the whole system becomes pointless since giving me a security clearance means nothing if you don't punish any negative actions I take.

the-governments-spying-is-not-as-bad-as-the-whistleblower-said-its-worse

***Schneier, the author and security expert, said it doesnt really matter how Prism works, technically. Just assume the government collects everything, he said.

He said it doesnt matter what the government and the companies say, either . No one is telling the truth.

Thats like saying that raping a rapist is not a crime, or killing a murderer is not a crime, what crimes one person or organization commited does not give a right for someone else to commit crimes.

[Signals.Cpl]

So what are the legal channels he can go through in order to bring this to the front? I'd love to hear them.

Bringing his issues to the attention of his chain of command, bringing it to the Civilian oversight committee and that just the most obvious once...

[GostHacked]

Bringing his issues to the attention of his chain of command, bringing it to the Civilian oversight committee and that just the most obvious once...

How much confidence would you put on that?

[dre]

Leaking secret information is illegal, irrelevant what the information is or wether you agree. Its the information he leakes thats breaking the law its the fact that he leaked it.

Not necessarily. If you are exposing federal agency misconduct, then you might be protected by the law as a whistle-blower.

[dre]

Bringing his issues to the attention of his chain of command, bringing it to the Civilian oversight committee and that just the most obvious once...

No bringing these things up with your chain of command is a bad idea. You are supposed to bring them up to the Office of Special Counsel under the whistle blower protection act, but the enhancements passed by Obama also cover disclosure through the press in some cases.

Either way, whether it was legal or not he did the right thing.

[Guest American Woman]

How much confidence would you put on that?

It doesn't matter if he had "confidence" in the legal route or not. One cannot take the law into their own hands simply because they don't have confidence in the system. Furthermore, he didn't even try.

[WWWTT]

I'm pretty sure the government broke the law too.

When you write the laws,appoint the judges and prosecutors,hire the police,then you can't really break the law can you?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Leaking secret information is illegal, irrelevant what the information is or wether you agree.

This is false!

Maybe this is true in the US (not entirely sure of the laws there),but in Canada,this statement is flat out wrong.

WWWTT