Printable View
Kinda curious to see where everyone comes down on this.
Personally, I think he's a hero. He had nothing to gain from doing this and everything to lose. He wasn't motivated by helping terrorists or money, but simply to spread the word to the American people about something he saw going on that he thought was wrong.
Hero should have been a choice , my guess everyone but steeldawg would have voted that way
I wouldn't be too quick to speak for Steeldawg. He may just surprise you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwinsgames
He exposed a specific instance of government misconduct. That makes him a whistleblower.
The difference between him and Bradley Manning is Manning indiscriminately leaked tens of thousands of documents, rather than a few carefully selected pieces of information.
If he gets 1 for traitor, we will know Obama is on this board.
Did he even leak documents or put people in danger by giving away names? I think all he did was outline what the government was doing so we knew. That's hero to me
- - - Updated - - -
Edward Snowden should not be arrested if Holder, Nobama, Clinton, top-level IRS employees, and atleast a hundred congressmen are not going to get arrested because they have done worse than what this guy did
Or steeldawg. :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Steeler
Not sure hero is the right term, but I'm in support of him.
Yep, how could you not support him.Quote:
Originally Posted by silver & black
I'm not convinced that makes a difference. You either leak classified info or you don't. I think the difference is in intent. Just like Snowden, he believed that our government was doing shady things under the guise of "national security" and he took great personal risk to expose it to the American People. He never intended to help the terrorists and he didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfather
In both cases, they committed felonies in order to set something right they thought was wrong. They knew the risks when they did it and accepted the consequences.
I find that very brave and noble. Misguided, maybe, depending on who you ask...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_X9cNqHPMQuote:
Originally Posted by GBMelBlount
^ People like Boehner are the problem IMO.
Fuck John Boehner.
I listen to Boehner talk, and I want to puke. No more proof needs to be shown that establishment Republicans are no different than liberal Democrats. They don't give a rat's ass about the people or protecting the people's freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Terminator
this
Of course John Boehner's spine is made of jello, intellectually he is as bright as a forest in the middle of a cloudy night, and he's as thick as cementQuote:
Originally Posted by X-Terminator
Boehnhead is as useless as teats on a bull.
I'd say Snowden described it pretty well himself.Quote:
"I'm neither traitor nor hero. I'm an American."
I voted whistleblower because I don't consider him a traitor but I also am not going so far as to call him a hero. Even though hes a whistleblower Im not sure that he really exposed the government doing anything we didn't already know they where doing and could legally do under the patriot act. Also I just don't have enough on this guy yet to make an accurate depiction, its confusing to me why a whistleblower that was unkown would come forward and reveal himself?
The way I understood it he was identified by the government, and willingly came forward only after that happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by steeldawg
According to him, he wanted people to know who he was just in case the CIA or their associates got to him. That way he couldn't be "disappeared" without people noticing.Quote:
Originally Posted by steeldawg
Although he didn't say it, I think he also wanted to have his side of the story out there in the court of public opinion.
Makes sense but risking your whole life to blow the whistle on something the government can legally do seems a little strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
Not for someone who loves their country and can't stand to see their government betraying its citizens. (Which, for the record, I'm not sold was this guys motive. He's got a big ego and it needed fed.)Quote:
Originally Posted by steeldawg
"Legal" isn't the same thing as "right". Government is very good at interpreting the letter of the law as the exact opposite of the intent of the law, which is what was done here. Yeah, he risked his life and he may well lose it. He *definitely* lost his cushy 6 figure job in Hawaii and his stripper girlfriend.Quote:
Originally Posted by steeldawg
But he saw something going on that he decided was more important than himself and he spoke out. I'd like to believe that I'd do the same, but I'm not certain. What would you do?
I'm looking for all the usual suspects to do the Sunday morning circuit tomorrow calling Snowden everything but a child of God. This is how "whistleblower protection" works these days.
A few things to keep firmly in mind as you're watching these politicians lie to your face:
1) They expect us to believe that *we* all (somehow) knew this was going on, but the terrorists didn't. Terrorists are, by nature, wary of all forms of direct communication. This revelation does absolutely nothing to help them, so it should never have been classified in the first place.
2) "He shoulda gone through the system or to Congress with his concerns"?? *Seriously*?? We all know how kindly the Federal government treats whistleblowers.
3) I have heard so far this week that Snowden was a Chinese agent, High School dropout, a failure who was drummed out of the military, and other sundry silliness. #1 I know a sad attempt at a smear campaign when I hear one and #2 IF THIS WAS TRUE, WHO'S THE BRAINIAC THAT GAVE HIM A TOP SECRET CLEARANCE??
But of course as much as they would like to make this about Snowden, it's not. It's about PRISM. Let's take a quick look at that...
4) "It had Congressional oversight". My ass. There is no "oversight" where Congress is kept in the dark and lied to.
5) "It had Judicial oversight". Yeah. From the FISA court, who were presented with over 1,700 warrant requests last year (incidentally, more than the number of warrants requested for criminal investigations) and disapproved none of them. That's not "oversight", it's a rubber stamp.
And it's not like you can go to the SCOTUS with it. How would you prove standing?
6) "It's legal." Is it? The guy who wrote the PATRIOT Act doesn't seem to think so. It flies in the face of the wording and original intent of the FISA Act. It does violence to 3 seperate sections of US Code protecting the privacy of metadata, which I spoke of here. And, of course, it makes a mockery of the 4th Amendment.
7) "It's effective." Even if it was (which I'll set aside for a moment), this is a particularly asinine argument. The government isn't allowed to do whatever it wants whenever it wants simply because it "works". But with the info we've been presented so far, it doesn't even appear to be very helpful. The only 2 cases I've seen them point to touting this so-called "effectiveness", PRISM wasn't central in either case.
So bearing all this in mind... If I was in his shoes and saw what he saw, I don't see how I could have any possible choice but either stay silent or go to the press with it.
Looking at Snowden and what he's done, and then looking at these politicians and what *they* have done, it seems very clear to me who the "untrustworthy" party is.
That's the biggest laugh I've heard all week. Congress wasn't even fully aware of what was going on. Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez came out of a meeting with NSA officials and said this to the media:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...opaganda-prismQuote:
"What we learned in there is significantly more than what is out in the media today. . . . I can't speak to what we learned in there, and I don't know if there are other leaks, if there's more information somewhere, if somebody else is going to step up, but I will tell you that I believe it's the tip of the iceberg . . . . I think it's just broader than most people even realize, and I think that's, in one way, what astounded most of us, too."
And yet you have the media acting like this is no big deal, that we're not hearing anything that's news. They warned us about the military industrial complex taking over...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/nsa-...llies-19418004
I've been solidly in Snowden's camp, but I don't agree with this revelation. It's not unconstitutional to spy on allies overseas, so he's got no call to reveal that information.
My $0.02
Yeah, I think he's gone a bit too far here. Besides, it's not like this has only started with the Obama administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSlash27
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...tent-of-emails
Snowden is showing himself to be a very intelligent and level-headed individual, despite increasing attempts by the media to defame him. And he's not backing down from his claim that the government DOES read private emails. He gives a grade A assessment of why public policy is not a reliant way to protect liberty IMO.
Quote:
"Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection — policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection — a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with."