Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

[red states rule]

You make the call




The man behind the NSA surveillance leaks is 29-year-old Edward Snowden. The UK Guardian is predicting he will go down in history as one of the “most consequential whistleblowers” in American history, alongside Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning.


After getting his GED, Snowden enlisted in the Army in 2003, to help the oppressed people of Iraq. He was disillusioned because, he said, most of those training him “seemed pumped up about killing Arabs, not helping anyone.” After breaking both legs in a training accident, he was discharged.


Next stop, the CIA in Geneva. “Much of what I saw in Geneva really disillusioned me about how my government functions and what its impact is in the world,” he said. “I realized that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good.” Snowden says he pondered leaking government secrets. But it was 2008. Obama was peddling “hope and change.” Like so many other 20-something-year-olds, Snowdon bought it. He thought Obama’s election would usher in the kind of reforms he wanted. But it didn't happen.


He left the CIA in 2009, and began working for the NSA in Japan. He says he “watched as Obama advanced the very policies” that he thought “would be reined in.” So he “got hardened.”


Snowden waited for four years. Then pounced. He leaked secrets to hand-picked journalists whose judgment he trusted, then fled to Hong Kong. Mr. Snowden. Obama’s getting pretty “hardened” over your leaking his secrets. He’s got drones. You’d better watch your “hardened” behind! I'm not kidding.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/06/10/morning_update_hardened

[fj1200]

Bradley Manning: Hero or Traitor?

[jimnyc]

You make the call

Not a hero, but I wouldn't go as far as to call him a traitor either. Someone with good intentions that committed a criminal act. I'm not convinced making terrorists aware that 'we' monitor all calls is enough to make one a traitor, or one who placed our country in danger.


Bradley Manning: Hero or Traitor?

FAR from a hero. Closer to a traitor IMO than Snowden, as the material released by him placed many lives in danger and released a lot of national security information that could perhaps be used by our enemies against us. But the names of operatives and such was what made his actions so far out there.

I fully understand everyone and their stances on privacy issues. But it's difficult for one to stand for privacy while championing someone who violated privacy in a criminal way. Personally, I am against the criminal actions of both, but would still champion the issue of privacy and would still condemn the issues we are all now aware of.

Similar but yet different to waterboarding, IMO. Some think it's a great tool and that terrorists who have plotted to kill Americans or who have killed Americans, are getting what they deserve. At the same time, many stand for the rule of law. Even when OBL was killed, and the initial reports were that the harsh techniques were what allowed him to be captured - many were happy with the news but still condemned the actions to get there.

[fj1200]

FAR from a hero.

Similar but yet different to waterboarding, IMO.

I don't think one should be praised and the other reviled simply because of which side of the issue you are.

And I think it's more like the TSA vs. the NSA.

[jimnyc]

I don't think one should be praised and the other reviled simply because of which side of the issue you are.

And I think it's more like the TSA vs. the NSA.

I think the point is - we follow the rule of law or we don't. While I have no issue with waterboarding, it was signed off on as legal during the Bush era. Now that it's been outlawed, I have no issue with anyone punished for utilizing it. If a juror, or judge, and being asked to be impartial and make my decision based on the law - both men would be found guilty, as would the waterboarder and one who authorized it.

I don't think we should be able to decide on the fly what laws we violate and which ones we honor. If we slowly allow more and more to break the law without consequence, regardless of how good their intent may have been, eventually the rule of law will be useless and there will be chaos.

I can champion waterboarding AND yet be honest enough to say that it's currently against the law and military guidelines.

[revelarts]

1. Since both were trying to expose the U.S. Gov't to the US people.
They are NOT traitors, unless the the U.S. people are enemies of the state.

2. Since they did not give any info to any enemies in confidence, which they could have, or even to foreign enemy media aljezera, etc.
there was no intent to be traitors.

3. since basically Zero HARM was done except to the rep of the U.S. Gov't. and the only people who are in danger of Death are the Whistle Blowers THEMSELVES...

Heroes

[jimnyc]

1. Since both were trying to expose the U.S. Gov't to the US people.
They are NOT traitors, unless the the U.S. people are enemies of the state.

2. Since they did not give any info to any enemies in confidence, which they could have, or even to foreign enemy media aljezera, etc.
there was no intent to be traitors.

3. since basically Zero HARM was done except to the rep of the U.S. Gov't. and the only people who are in danger of Death are the Whistle Blowers THEMSELVES...

Heroes

1 - He exposed it to a foreign entity, exposed what is national security information, even if you disagree with them.
2 - A former CIA employee wouldn't know that exposing something to the world is also exposing it to our enemies? Again, he release security information that he was sworn to protect, and to a foreign entity no less.
3 - Illegal is illegal. "Danger" is not a prerequisite for whether or not someone could release national security documents.

1 - Waterboarders were only trying to save American lives
2 - They had no intent on being traitors, only to gather intelligence
3 - Zero harm was brought to a single American and lives were ultimately saved.

Heroes. The fact that you think they broke the law as an means to the end doesn't matter, what matters is their intent. No Americans harmed and even the terrorists walked away. And hell, I suppose I should support it now that it's against law and guidelines, as the good intent is there, it's to help America and the only possible harm is to the reputation of our government. Waterboard away!

[fj1200]

Heroes. The fact that you think they broke the law as an means to the end doesn't matter, what matters is their intent. No Americans harmed and even the terrorists walked away. And hell, I suppose I should support it now that it's against law and guidelines, as the good intent is there, it's to help America and the only possible harm is to the reputation of our government. Waterboard away!

How do you feel about whistleblowers? I suppose it's the same thing as breaking an unconstitutional law; sometimes it needs to be done.

[jimnyc]

How do you feel about whistleblowers? I suppose it's the same thing as breaking an unconstitutional law; sometimes it needs to be done.

Whistlblowers, none that I am aware of, break the law in order to "blow the whistle". I think they are awesome myself, and certainly needed at times, but I won't support them breaking the law.

WHO gets to break laws? Anyone? What is the criteria for being allowed to break a law? Does this apply to ALL laws? Will there be anything codified supporting the breaking of laws, and which are OK to break and which would be going too far? Will there be something written that describes the line where something can be reported without consequence and others have consequences? Do we allow it only with things that we disagree with? What if it's something we agree with them doing, but others don't? It sounds to me like anything that the government has secured (information), so long as anyone with access to it disagrees with it, and feels its unconstitutional, they are free to disseminate it to the world? Does every government/fbi/cia/nsa employee get to make this decision? Should these intelligence agencies be put on notice, that if one of their employees feels something they see is wrong, it then becomes legal to break confidentiality and release it?

And still no one has given a reasonable answer as to why he couldn't have tried appropriate channels first, prior to going directly to the illegal route. This NSA stuff is already documented within Congress and some members went as far as to vote in favor of it. It would be hard for them to deny something they voted for. All we have are "what if" scenarios and really no good reason as to why he couldn't have at least tried to do things the proper way before sending this information to the UK and bailing himself.

[revelarts]

1 - Waterboarders were only trying to save American lives
2 - They had no intent on being traitors, only to gather intelligence
3 - Zero harm was brought to a single American and lives were ultimately saved.

Heroes. The fact that you think they broke the law as an means to the end doesn't matter, what matters is their intent. No Americans harmed and even the terrorists walked away. And hell, I suppose I should support it now that it's against law and guidelines, as the good intent is there, it's to help America and the only possible harm is to the reputation of our government. Waterboard away!


1st of all,
as i've mentioned at lentgh. with many quotes from integrators.
you get more and better intel without torture.

so as you've pointed out. If there is a legal way to get it done DON"T do it illegally.
I mentioned what happened to sybil edmonds and there are many others with similar experiences. there is no relable legal mean to whislte blow.
there ARE reliable means of interrogation.

Ok, Zero harm , ..zero harm.. zero harm? to any americans you say.
just on the braoder level. MANY in and out of the military have said that the Harm to the U.S. reputation abroad has INCREASED the number of terrorist ANd put MORE americans at risk.
The Soldiers At AbuGraid who were encouraged to torture but are now in Jail for following the lead of higher ups have been harmed.

But mainly every person ever torture was HARMED.
for no reason, but that's another thread. you folks would rather believe what supports your view and IGNORE ALL evidence i've presented by experts of the FBI and various military. NO torture was needed. NONE. And the bi-partisan group found that it DID NOT save lives


And if you are consistent Jim. None of the torture was legal.
a justice dept letter does not make torture legal.
THAT's ALL BUSH HAD WHEN IT STARTED.
Before that letter water boarding and the other items had been tried in the U.S. as torture.
That letter was not law.

[fj1200]

WHO gets to break laws? Anyone? What is the criteria for being allowed to break a law? Does this apply to ALL laws? Will there be anything codified supporting the breaking of laws, and which are OK to break and which would be going too far? Will there be something written that describes the line where something can be reported without consequence and others have consequences? Do we allow it only with things that we disagree with? What if it's something we agree with them doing, but others don't?

And still no one has given a reasonable answer as to why he couldn't have tried appropriate channels first, prior to going directly to the illegal route.

First, laws are broken all the time only to later be found unconstitutional; not always with this level of intent of course. Second, therein lies the risk is his action. Third, I dunno; do we know what other efforts he might have made?

[BillyBob]

Not a hero, but I wouldn't go as far as to call him a traitor either. Someone with good intentions that committed a criminal act.

What criminal act?



I'm not convinced making terrorists aware that 'we' monitor all calls is enough to make one a traitor, or one who placed our country in danger.


You think the terrorists didn't already know that?

[revelarts]

Jim, you don't reply when i posted this line of reasoning.
please answer this question.

if you were a cop and stopped a car for speeding.
but found out that there was a man driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.
Would you give the man a ticket?

And give them a talk about the rule of law?

[jimnyc]

First, laws are broken all the time only to later be found unconstitutional; not always with this level of intent of course. Second, therein lies the risk is his action. Third, I dunno; do we know what other efforts he might have made?

Well, in this case it may be found out that the actions of the NSA were unconstitutional, but that still wouldn't make the laws broken to disseminate confidential documents would be unconstitutional.

As for efforts... ANY effort would have been more than he tried. He could have went to various prosecutors, the AG, congressional committees, superiors. Of course some will scoff and claim it would have been fruitless, but I suppose we'll never know now. We also didn't know much about what went down at Benghazi, until information was given to various politicians, and then they demanded answers and convened inquiries. One's doubt that other routes may not have worked isn't an invitation to go straight to breaking the law.

[jimnyc]

What criminal act?

You think the terrorists didn't already know that?

At the very bare minimum - theft. The information and documentation didn't belong to him. And I don't know the codes off the top of my head, I will look later, but stealing confidential documents and disseminating them falls under various criminal charges. The government is already getting these charges prepared in an effort to eventually have him extradited, if they can.

I don't know exactly what any terrorist knows. But I do know that we shouldn't be making any security information available to them at all, at least not without authorization and perhaps redacting of certain sensitive information. And likely they do know about monitoring of calls/internet stuff, and yet various governments have still been able to find intelligence via these methods.

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5yB3n9fu-rM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Jim, you don't reply when i posted this line of reasoning.
please answer this question.

if you were a cop and stopped a car for speeding.
but found out that there was a man driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.
Would you give the man a ticket?

And give them a talk about the rule of law?

The worst thing one can do when transporting a pregnant woman to a hospital is to get nervous and speed, it only adds another element of danger to the mix. Even ambulances will remain within the speed limit, but have the authority to go through red lights and such once clear.

If me? I would give them an escort to ensure she got there safe and sound - and then give the man a ticket for breaking the law. He should probably get a reckless driving ticket as well for putting his wife and baby in danger that was unnecessary, but I doubt I could make that stick, so a speeding ticket would suffice.

Don't believe me? Ask my wife. We did several dry runs to the hospital of our choice, both under emergency conditions and with time to spare. It was about a 13 minute ride to our hospital. I think I could have shaved 3 minutes off of that time if I were willing to place all of the lives in the vehicle at risk.

I think off the top of my head, the only time I can think of that I guarantee that I would break the law, would be something we all discussed before - seeing my child being violated. I may assault, up to murder, depending on the severity of what the criminal was doing. I also understand that if I take the law into my own hands, I will likely receive charges of my own. Sorta like people who go crazy in court and sucker punch a criminal who murdered a family member. Seen it a bunch of times, and they walk away with an assault charge of their own. These are the chances one takes when they break the law. It may feel like the right decision, and even make sense to some, but we have laws for a reason.

[BillyBob]

At the very bare minimum - theft. The information and documentation didn't belong to him. And I don't know the codes off the top of my head, I will look later, but stealing confidential documents and disseminating them falls under various criminal charges. The government is already getting these charges prepared in an effort to eventually have him extradited, if they can.



That sounds like a diversionary tactic so the press won't focus on the government spying on the citizenry and instead focus on Snowden's supposed crimes.

[jimnyc]

It's honorable that you guys want to defend this guy. I'm glad the stuff came out into the open too. But he'll end up similar to Manning, or lucky enough to hide from everything he once loved while in another country. Unless one makes a mockery of our courts, or outright disregards law, he WILL be found guilty. His ONLY hope is a sympathetic jury, which of course is always a possibility.

But hero? I think of the many military folks who have earned medals when they saved lives and lost limbs. Or police officers and fireman who save lives. But a hero for stealing information, sending it to a foreign land, and hiding in another foreign land? Not a hero in my book. If you agree with him 100%, I can see calling him a man of honor, a man of principle, but not a hero. But hey, different strokes for different folks. Then again, maybe I'm a little stingy with who gets that title. These days a queer outing themselves is sometimes called heroic. Call me old fashioned, I guess.

[jimnyc]

That sounds like a diversionary tactic so the press won't focus on the government spying on the citizenry and instead focus on Snowden's supposed crimes.

What the government did, and what he did, are 2 different things. He admitted he took the documents without authorization, there is no "supposed" about it. I don't care if the entire government takes the fall for the NSA crap, I feel it was wrong too. NONE of what I say is in any way a defense of their crap. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The idiots who voted this in should be "punished" by not getting re-elected. Unfortunately, they didn't commit crimes that can be charged. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing that happen.

[BillyBob]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5yB3n9fu-rM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>


Thanks for that vid. This guy is smart, articulate and a real problem for the tyrannical government we now live under. Well, that's assuming most Americans see this vid...and that the media reports this truthfully...and that Obama is serious about protecting us from the government as per his claims....

Yeah right!

[BillyBob]

What the government did, and what he did, are 2 different things. He admitted he took the documents without authorization, there is no "supposed" about it. I don't care if the entire government takes the fall for the NSA crap, I feel it was wrong too. NONE of what I say is in any way a defense of their crap. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The idiots who voted this in should be "punished" by not getting re-elected. Unfortunately, they didn't commit crimes that can be charged. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing that happen.


I don't know what documents he took, do you?

[BillyBob]

I wonder how long before that vid gets pulled.

[revelarts]

What the government did, and what he did, are 2 different things. He admitted he took the documents without authorization, there is no "supposed" about it. I don't care if the entire government takes the fall for the NSA crap, I feel it was wrong too. NONE of what I say is in any way a defense of their crap. But 2 wrongs don't make a right. The idiots who voted this in should be "punished" by not getting re-elected. Unfortunately, they didn't commit crimes that can be charged. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing that happen.

Breaking the FISA law comes with fines and Jail time.
"fines up to $ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Dollar)10,000, up to five years in jail, or both" I believe that's per incident.

so if the congress enables that if congress enables it and the president orders it and the heads of the NSA, FBI etc order it oversee it .
They are involved in a criminal conspiracy to strip the public of it rights.
Time to slap some RICO Charges on them as well.
"Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_crime_in_the_United_States) and 8 state crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_law_in_the_United_States)—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering). Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count."


I think a few good lawyers could make this work are you with me Jim?

-i'm not a lawyer but i play one the interwebs-

[jimnyc]

I don't know what documents he took, do you?

Documents related to this so called "Prism" program. He admitted he made plans to take them, and stated how he did so 3 weeks ago and then lied to his work and his girlfriend just prior to bailing. Funny too that he added he had no intention of hiding his identity as he doesn't feel he did anything wrong. He'll apparently only hide his whereabouts and try to get a country sympathetic to his plight.


I wonder how long before that vid gets pulled.

You can't get rid of it. It's already on thousands and thousands of websites, both here and abroad. Removing it from Youtube would be a waste of time.

[jimnyc]

Breaking the FISA law comes with fines and Jail time.
"fines up to $ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Dollar)10,000, up to five years in jail, or both" I believe that's per incident.

so if the congress enables that if congress enables it and the president orders it and the heads of the NSA, FBI etc order it oversee it .
They are involved in a criminal conspiracy to strip the public of it rights.
Time to slap some RICO Charges on them as well.
"Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_crime_in_the_United_States) and 8 state crimes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_law_in_the_United_States)—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeering). Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count."


I think a few good lawyers could make this work are you with me Jim?

-i'm not a lawyer but i play one the interwebs-

Not bad for a pretend lawyer, but unfortunately it wouldn't come close to sticking in court. You can thank the asshats in Congress who gave them the authority to proceed with this program. I'm assuming these were intelligence committees within Congress, so they would need to be jailed too. While I wouldn't lose a single second of sleep watching every last one of them led off in cuffs, it's not a realistic expectation. They REALLY need to come out, hopefully sooner than later now that the cat is out of the bag, with what authorization process this went through and WHO all voted in favor of it. Those nitwits need to be identified and hopefully never get re-elected. But even that may not be realistic (Rangel, Barry, Feinstein, Pelosi...)

[revelarts]

The worst thing one can do when transporting a pregnant woman to a hospital is to get nervous and speed, it only adds another element of danger to the mix. Even ambulances will remain within the speed limit, but have the authority to go through red lights and such once clear.

If me? I would give them an escort to ensure she got there safe and sound - and then give the man a ticket for breaking the law. He should probably get a reckless driving ticket as well for putting his wife and baby in danger that was unnecessary, but I doubt I could make that stick, so a speeding ticket would suffice.

Don't believe me? Ask my wife. We did several dry runs to the hospital of our choice, both under emergency conditions and with time to spare. It was about a 13 minute ride to our hospital. I think I could have shaved 3 minutes off of that time if I were willing to place all of the lives in the vehicle at risk.

I think off the top of my head, the only time I can think of that I guarantee that I would break the law, would be something we all discussed before - seeing my child being violated. I may assault, up to murder, depending on the severity of what the criminal was doing. I also understand that if I take the law into my own hands, I will likely receive charges of my own. Sorta like people who go crazy in court and sucker punch a criminal who murdered a family member. Seen it a bunch of times, and they walk away with an assault charge of their own. These are the chances one takes when they break the law. It may feel like the right decision, and even make sense to some, but we have laws for a reason.

So yes, you would give them a ticket and good talking to on the rule of law AND safe driving speeds. After you escorted them to the hospital.
"congratulations on the baby, here's a ticket." :laugh:.


So i guess
You would have arrested the "indians" at the Boston Tea Party...
You would arrested Harriet Tubman and sent her back to her slave masters with any other run away slaves...
and arrested Daniel and tossed him in the lions den because he prayed when it was against the law.

Jim, Jim, Jim

the law is a tool not a god my friend. but everyone has a right to their opinion,
until it's against the law i guess

[BillyBob]

Documents related to this so called "Prism" program. He admitted he made plans to take them, and stated how he did so 3 weeks ago and then lied to his work and his girlfriend just prior to bailing. Funny too that he added he had no intention of hiding his identity as he doesn't feel he did anything wrong. He'll apparently only hide his whereabouts and try to get a country sympathetic to his plight.

He's welcome to come hide out in Nashville. Tennessee is sympathetic to his plight.




You can't get rid of it. It's already on thousands and thousands of websites, both here and abroad. Removing it from Youtube would be a waste of time.


Gotta love the internet! [Obama must hate it right about now]

[jimnyc]

the law is a tool not a god my friend.

Yes, but not a tool to only use when we feel like it, or when we disagree with something. The law is the law and needs to be adhered to. Maybe a judge will see things in various cases, and offer leniency, or toss things out of court. We offer judges that discretion (and in some cases they are stuck with guidelines). But we, or officers of the law or equivalent, we don't get to pick and choose to decide who we think broke a law and who we will let slide. Should Snowden be brought forth on charges, and found not guilty by a jury, then so be it. But then both the defendant and "the people" have had their day in court.

But even that may not happen, as the man who states that he doesn't believe he did anything wrong and isn't 'hiding', is hiding in another country.

[revelarts]

Yes, but not a tool to only use when we feel like it, or when we disagree with something. The law is the law and needs to be adhered to. Maybe a judge will see things in various cases, and offer leniency, or toss things out of court. We offer judges that discretion (and in some cases they are stuck with guidelines). But we, or officers of the law or equivalent, we don't get to pick and choose to decide who we think broke a law and who we will let slide. Should Snowden be brought forth on charges, and found not guilty by a jury, then so be it. But then both the defendant and "the people" have had their day in court.

But even that may not happen, as the man who states that he doesn't believe he did anything wrong and isn't 'hiding', is hiding in another country.

From a system that is corrupt yes.

The guy who blew the whistle on torture is going to jail but NONE of the torturers, or torture orders are.
Sybil Edmonds got fired from the FBI and harassed the incompetent people she rated on got promoted. The traitors she exposed got away or got promoted. some of these tratoirs were dealing in nuclear secrets.

the system is corrupt Jim. the law is not working in some areas.
the criminal congress made a new law to break the old one. you say "it's the law now so its ok.".
I call BS!

the guys a hero and if we do get our privacy back he will be one of the reasons it happened.
because TO MANY people have had a hard time even taking in the concept that our gov't will do any serious systematic wrong.
He had break the law to provide proof of it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
there are others that have said it for years but now somehow it real, the MSM acknowledged it.
OK great
Thanks but you still go to jail though. you did it willy nilly.

Is there any wonder why people don't blow the whistle more often, when people who even like the fact that they now have the info think they should go to jail anyway.
Thanks, for the info, but go to jail lawbreaker.

[jimnyc]

Is there any wonder why people don't blow the whistle more often, when people who even like the fact that they now have the info think they should go to jail anyway.
Thanks, for the info, but go to jail lawbreaker.

Very rarely do people break the law in order to let the cat out of the bag. And even in the very rare cases, those people had the option of NOT breaking the law. WAY too many people assuming that anything short of breaking the law would lead to a death sentence by the guys in the black helicopters.

[gabosaurus]

What makes Snowden different than the guys from Wiki Leaks?

[jimnyc]

What makes Snowden different than the guys from Wiki Leaks?

I personally see 'little' difference between him and Manning. Others support both. What's your point?

[gabosaurus]

I personally see 'little' difference between him and Manning. Others support both. What's your point?

It goes with the "hero or traitor" question. Some hold the WikiLeaks people as heroes of the highest order. Some hold them in contempt.
I salute both of them for bringing out the truth.

[Gaffer]

His crime was making the NSA and govt in general look bad. He didn't endanger anyone and any terrorist already knows the govt is monitoring calls. Snowden has simply exposed big brother. For that they will chase him down, prosecute him and lock him away. They will have have their vengeance and use him as an example to other potential whistle blowers.

[BillyBob]

His crime was making the NSA and govt in general look bad.


Unfortunately, that's probably the extent of it. I have no reason to believe his exposure of our fascist government will have any effect towards reigning it in.

[jimnyc]

Unfortunately, that's probably the extent of it. I have no reason to believe his exposure of our fascist government will have any effect towards reigning it in.

Nor do I. And I also agree that the largest 'hurt' coming from this will be to their pride and ego. I don't think this is a security issue that forever changes things. BUT - the outcome of the crime doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed.

[BillyBob]

Nor do I. And I also agree that the largest 'hurt' coming from this will be to their pride and ego. I don't think this is a security issue that forever changes things. BUT - the outcome of the crime doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed.


Which crime? The unConstitutional government intrusion or the exposure of the unConstitutional government intrusion?

[fj1200]

Well, in this case it may be found out that the actions of the NSA were unconstitutional, but that still wouldn't make the laws broken to disseminate confidential documents would be unconstitutional.

As for efforts... ANY effort would have been more than he tried. He could have went to various prosecutors, the AG, congressional committees, superiors. Of course some will scoff and claim it would have been fruitless, but I suppose we'll never know now. We also didn't know much about what went down at Benghazi, until information was given to various politicians, and then they demanded answers and convened inquiries. One's doubt that other routes may not have worked isn't an invitation to go straight to breaking the law.

Well that's true. Maybe he gets the Daniel Ellsburg treatment; guilty but goes free.

[red states rule]

What makes Snowden different than the guys from Wiki Leaks?

Manning's leaks to Wiki Leaks cost informers (and their families) their lives. It also showed how f'd up our national security is when a Army Private had access to such material

Manning should be hanged

As far as Snowden, how can a guy who is not a HS graduate, with zero college, and only 3 months on the job have access to such classified material?

It appears Snowden is a upset liberal who has upset over Obama and his policies and decided to release classified info. He should also be tossed in jail

[red states rule]

It goes with the "hero or traitor" question. Some hold the WikiLeaks people as heroes of the highest order. Some hold them in contempt.
I salute both of them for bringing out the truth.

Will you salute the graves on the people killed thanks to Manning's leaks? People helped us and Manning sold them out

Mush like the Doctor who helped us kill OBL. He was left behind and is rotting in jail. Not a good track record to recruit people to help us

[red states rule]

1. Since both were trying to expose the U.S. Gov't to the US people.
They are NOT traitors, unless the the U.S. people are enemies of the state.

2. Since they did not give any info to any enemies in confidence, which they could have, or even to foreign enemy media aljezera, etc.
there was no intent to be traitors.

3. since basically Zero HARM was done except to the rep of the U.S. Gov't. and the only people who are in danger of Death are the Whistle Blowers THEMSELVES...

Heroes

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c10994420130611120100.jpg

[red states rule]

Over at DNCTV, the Morning Joe libs took their shots at Snowden. Oh, if only this would have happened while Bush was still President!

<iframe width="500" height="281" title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121554" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Manning's leaks to Wiki Leaks cost informers (and their families) their lives. It also showed how f'd up our national security is when a Army Private had access to such material

Manning should be hanged

As far as Snowden, how can a guy who is not a HS graduate, with zero college, and only 3 months on the job have access to such classified material?

It appears Snowden is a upset liberal who has upset over Obama and his policies and decided to release classified info. He should also be tossed in jail

He was former CIA for 2 years and was 3 years into the job at this contracting gig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

[red states rule]

He was former CIA for 2 years and was 3 years into the job at this contracting gig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

Looks like he was on the job for only 3 months Jim




The consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton issued a statement Tuesday confirming that Edward Snowden had been fired "for violations of the firm's code of ethics and firm policy."


The firm said Snowden, 29, was fired Monday from his job as a contractor for the National Security Agency that paid an annual a salary of $122,000, although he had been an employee for less than 3 months.


Snowden, a former technical analyst for the CIA, revealed Sunday that he was the source of leaks detailing surveillance efforts involving NSA collection of phone and Internet data. He worked for Booz Allen in Hawaii, but had been hiding in Hong Kong in recent days.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/11/booz-allen-snowden-fired/2411231/

[jimnyc]

Looks like he was on the job for only 3 months Jim

Yes, I didn't read far enough. I see he went to a contractor in 2009, but apparently went to another for 3 months as you stated.

Career On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_%28United_States_Army%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-BirthDate-1) He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war) because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-guardian-reveal-8) but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency) (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Maryland),[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-15) before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) (CIA) to work on IT security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_security).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-16)

In 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cover) in Geneva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva), Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland), where he was responsible for maintaining computer network security.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-17) Snowden left the agency in 2009 for a private contractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company) inside an NSA facility on a United States military base in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-guardian-reveal-8)
At the time of his departure from the US in May 2013, he had been working for defense contractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor) Booz Allen Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton) for less than three months as a system administrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_administrator) inside the NSA in Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-booz-allen-statement-18)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-19) He described his life as "very comfortable," earning a salary of "roughly US$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)200,000",[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-guardian-reveal-8) although his employer disputed this claim on June 10, when he was fired "for violations of the firm's code of ethics and firm policy."

[red states rule]

Yes, I didn't read far enough. I see he went to a contractor in 2009, but apparently went to another for 3 months as you stated.

Career

On May 7, 2004, Snowden enlisted in the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) with the hope of eventually joining the Special Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_%28United_States_Army%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-BirthDate-1) He said, "I wanted to fight in the Iraq war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war) because I felt like I had an obligation as a human being to help free people from oppression"[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-guardian-reveal-8) but was discharged just months later on September 28 after breaking both of his legs in a training accident. His next employment was as a National Security Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency) (NSA) security guard for a covert facility at the University of Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Maryland),[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-15) before joining the Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) (CIA) to work on IT security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_security).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-16)

In 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_cover) in Geneva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva), Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland), where he was responsible for maintaining computer network security.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-17) Snowden left the agency in 2009 for a private contractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company) inside an NSA facility on a United States military base in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-guardian-reveal-8)
At the time of his departure from the US in May 2013, he had been working for defense contractor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor) Booz Allen Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booz_Allen_Hamilton) for less than three months as a system administrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_administrator) inside the NSA in Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-booz-allen-statement-18)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-19) He described his life as "very comfortable," earning a salary of "roughly US$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)200,000",[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#cite_note-guardian-reveal-8) although his employer disputed this claim on June 10, when he was fired "for violations of the firm's code of ethics and firm policy."

The point I was making there there is no reason he should have had access to that info. Just as an Army PRIVATE like Manning was able to get the info he was able to leak

This country is f'd up Kim both economically and when it comes to national security

[logroller]

Well, in this case it may be found out that the actions of the NSA were unconstitutional, but that still wouldn't make the laws broken to disseminate confidential documents would be unconstitutional.

As for efforts... ANY effort would have been more than he tried. He could have went to various prosecutors, the AG, congressional committees, superiors. Of course some will scoff and claim it would have been fruitless, but I suppose we'll never know now. We also didn't know much about what went down at Benghazi, until information was given to various politicians, and then they demanded answers and convened inquiries. One's doubt that other routes may not have worked isn't an invitation to go straight to breaking the law.
See Thomas drake-- proper channels, and vigorously attacked for it. All they got him for was some bs unauthorized computer use. "civil disobedience"--That's jargon for silencing dissent and whistleblowers.

Looks like he was on the job for only 3 months Jim
He likely still had security clearance prior to his NSA job though. It's not like you get a NSA job through a local temp agency-- the requirements are that one has high level security clearances prior to being considered. Saying he's only been in the job for a few months implies the security requirements were not met somehow; that's a near-zero probability.

[red states rule]

See Thomas drake-- proper channels, and vigorously attacked for it. All they got him for was some bs unauthorized computer use. "civil disobedience"--That's jargon for silencing dissent and whistleblowers.

He likely still had security clearance prior to his NSA job though. It's not like you get a NSA job through a local temp agency-- the requirements are that one has high level security clearances prior to being considered. Saying he's only been in the job for a few months implies the security requirements were not met somehow; that's a near-zero probability.

It is obvious there was an issues with his "security clearance". As I posted he was a PO'd liberal who was disappointed with Obama and his policies

Right now I wonder who wants him more. Our law enforcement agencies or the Chinese?

[jimnyc]

See Thomas drake-- proper channels, and vigorously attacked for it. All they got him for was some bs unauthorized computer use. "civil disobedience"--That's jargon for silencing dissent and whistleblowers.

So your stance is, based on prior attempts on a different 'case' and different individual, that failed - that future people should automatically break the law based on that? No point in even having security agencies then if we are telling everyone with access to the data that they can disseminate it, because of another guy in the past who was attacked for going through proper channels?

[logroller]

It is obvious there was an issues with his "security clearance". As I posted he was a PO'd liberal who was disappointed with Obama and his policies

Right now I wonder who wants him more. Our law enforcement agencies or the Chinese?
It's "obvious" that he didn't abide by the terms of his security clearance; not that he wasn't properly vetted. As I pointed out, look a t Thomas drake-- a highly-decorated career soldier that went through the proper channels and was, along with others, punished for it. If you can't see that those policies extend beyond Obama, dems and liberals, than you can't see the forest for the trees. It's the exposure of government corruption that is on trial here.

A po'd liberal? Seriously rsr, not everything is partisan politics. Obama and bush both spied on Americans and broke laws in doing so. Doesn't that bother you- or is that just a liberal concern?

[Kathianne]

Civil disobedience means breaking unjust laws without violence and be willing to take the consequences of breaking the law to demonstrate the wrongness of the law.

In this case, the man not only wasn't willing to take consequences, he purposely left the country before breaking the law, in order to avoid punishment. Will it work for him? Time will tell. From everything I've read about him from the two reporters he gave the information to, he attempted to coerce them in ways he believed they should tell his story. This seems more of the public getting some information that will hopefully lead to a renewed discussion of what we've lost and what we want to regain or keep. However, this man's purposes seem self-driven and selfish.

[aboutime]

After several days of reading as much about this Snowden guy as I could find. My conclusion must be. He is guilty of treason because he INTENTIONALLY broke his agreed contract to remain silent, and never disclose classified information.

I can only compare him to what I personally experienced while in the Navy, as a Senior Radioman who had access to, and held high security clearances to handle, distribute, and reproduce classified information.

If I, or anyone working with me in our rating of the Radioman, and Communications for the military intentionally, or accidentally disclosed any classified information. MY career in the navy would have been terminated. And there is a good probability. I would not be able to come here to DP...since I doubt Internet Access is permitted from Fort Levenworth, Kansas....in the PRISON.

If anyone reading this has any doubts, as to the accuracy, and honesty of what I said above.
If you know anyone in the Navy, or anyone who WAS in the navy.
Ask them yourself.

[logroller]

So your stance is, based on prior attempts on a different 'case' and different individual, that failed - that future people should automatically break the law based on that?
My response was to your "if he'd went through proper channels, things may have been different- but we'll never know" stance. I put forth an example of where proper channels were used, the result was expedited and even broader attack upon whistleblowers. There's a problem here; ruminating on would could should distances us from the impetus of the issue-- the government is breaking the law and what will it take to change that.


No point in even having security agencies then if we are telling everyone with access to the data that they can disseminate it, because of another guy in the past who was attacked for going through proper channels?
Likewise, I suppose there's no point in having a constitution either, nor granting immunity to witnesses. But I don't believe it's an all or nothing solution. Over the last decade we've seen laws passed by congress and enforced by the president that undermine civil liberties. The patriot act and subsequent amendments to the NISA of 1978 have given the president plenary authority to surveil anyone and everyone without checks to any potential overreach. We have proper channels for the just dispensation of warrants-- specifically in regards to national security they're called FISC--- but they've been circumvented. So tell me how, exactly, one is to take the proper path when the path is closed? To no small extent, we've been told that desperate times call for desperate measures-- that was the onus of the patriot act, et al; but if thats the rally cry, vis a vis, so too does it apply to leakers.

[logroller]

Civil disobedience means breaking unjust laws without violence and be willing to take the consequences of breaking the law to demonstrate the wrongness of the law.

In this case, the man not only wasn't willing to take consequences, he purposely left the country before breaking the law, in order to avoid punishment. Will it work for him? Time will tell. From everything I've read about him from the two reporters he gave the information to, he attempted to coerce them in ways he believed they should tell his story. This seems more of the public getting some information that will hopefully lead to a renewed discussion of what we've lost and what we want to regain or keep. However, this man's purposes seem self-driven and selfish.
I would say his methods are, but not necessarily his purpose/motive. He's certainly no hero; more of a coward really; but I wouldn't say he's some self-serving traitor either. It's analogous to someone who discovers a smoldering fire, runs for safety and then calls it in from home. He should stick around and explain himself, but the impetus for sounding the alarm stands on its own merits regardless of whether he stuck around to face the consequences.

[jimnyc]

My response was to your "if he'd went through proper channels, things may have been different- but we'll never know" stance. I put forth an example of where proper channels were used, the result was expedited and even broader attack upon whistleblowers. There's a problem here; ruminating on would could should distances us from the impetus of the issue-- the government is breaking the law and what will it take to change that.

Likewise, I suppose there's no point in having a constitution either, nor granting immunity to witnesses. But I don't believe it's an all or nothing solution. Over the last decade we've seen laws passed by congress and enforced by the president that undermine civil liberties. The patriot act and subsequent amendments to the NISA of 1978 have given the president plenary authority to surveil anyone and everyone without checks to any potential overreach. We have proper channels for the just dispensation of warrants-- specifically in regards to national security they're called FISC--- but they've been circumvented. So tell me how, exactly, one is to take the proper path when the path is closed? To no small extent, we've been told that desperate times call for desperate measures-- that was the onus of the patriot act, et al; but if thats the rally cry, vis a vis, so too does it apply to leakers.

You believe, based on a past instance/s, that any attempt to legally speak up on such a situation cannot possibly happen. That's fair enough, even though I disagree. But the bottom line is this - if one wants to take such a stance, and go ahead and break the law to make their point, or to "out" something, then they must prepare themselves for the consequences. Just having others agree with them or label them a hero won't help much in court. He knows this too, which is why he ran to another country. The focus will now be more about him and and any forthcoming legal maneuvers, and many won't even pay attention to the information leaked. And he himself is responsible for this. Being able to have this displayed on C-span or similar via a congressional investigation? Now THAT would have opened eyes. Hillary was doing awesome and looking to 2016 - then came an investigation and then came "What does it matter...". Even the heaviest of heavyweights ended up attending and taking a beating. Then go backwards in time to all of the Intel officials after 9/11, brutally grilled for every last detail, and rightfully so. Maybe people wanted to see people from these incidents in jail? I don't know. But my point is that past history also shows some of the biggest players in the game sitting at that inquiry table, unable to avoid the scrutiny that came with constant accusations, most of which were internal and slowly leaked.

It's quite reasonable to think that had Snowden went to a congressional leader, an intelligence committee, someone with some 'nads - we may have seen another inquiry in Congress as to who knew what and who voted and who dropped the ball. Now the center of attention is on a man hiding in Hong Kong.

[jimnyc]

I would say his methods are, but not necessarily his purpose/motive. He's certainly no hero; more of a coward really; but I wouldn't say he's some self-serving traitor either. It's analogous to someone who discovers a smoldering fire, runs for safety and then calls it in from home. He should stick around and explain himself, but the impetus for sounding the alarm stands on its own merits regardless of whether he stuck around to face the consequences.

That was kind of an opinion of mine too. I say certainly no hero, and I don't think what he released makes him a traitor to his country. He's simply a criminal that had security access and violated his oath and contract. Whether his intent is enough to overcome that clear criminal acts he committed, yet to be seen. But fleeing the country doesn't help his case.

[Kathianne]

I would say his methods are, but not necessarily his purpose/motive. He's certainly no hero; more of a coward really; but I wouldn't say he's some self-serving traitor either. It's analogous to someone who discovers a smoldering fire, pulls the fire alarm and runs for safety. He should stick around and explain himself, but the impetus for sounding the alarm stands on its own merits regardless of whether he stuck around to face the consequences.

I disagree. While I am glad there's been a fuse lit between the ruling classes of both parties, note most of them are the ones calling traitor and see nothing wrong with this enormous loss of 4th amendment protected civil liberties, the people overwhelmingly are appalled. Of course, the ruling elite see nothing wrong with the peons loss of liberties, but there are far more peons than elite. If they choose to the underclass can always reign in the ruling class.

This Snowden story hasn't struck me as logical from the get go. That a 29 year old high school/college drop out, enlists and then is separated from the army in short order with two broken legs, then moves onto I think it was NSA, then CIA, then through contract work with CIA, something very off about that.

We are to believe that this man not only had access to the super secret programs, but was able to copy and get out of country, release them to two internationally known newspapers, all within a 3 month window. Crap, he's making it look like the media well vetted Obama.

[logroller]

It's quite reasonable to think that had Snowden went to a congressional leader, an intelligence committee, someone with some 'nads - we may have seen another inquiry in Congress as to who knew what and who voted and who dropped the ball. Now the center of attention is on a man hiding in Hong Kong.
Not my attention; but I'm less inclined to buy into the obfuscation of the matter. Look at the Drake example I gave; the center of attention was still upon him and his trial. It certainly didn't reveal anyone in Congress with the "nads" to see an inquiry into what had happened. In fact, they redacted the relevant portions on what was happening and doubled down on the laws which allowed the surveillance activities to come to occur in the first place. Is it reasonable to believe that maybe now things are different? It's possible I guess, but not likely; but what do I know. However, I'm guessing someone with secure access to classified documents is astutely aware of just how improbable an exposé would result any differently based upon whether they stuck around. Didn't work for drake, nor manning and there's a lot more. Do you have an example of someone in the last decade who exposed the government spying on its own people that resulted in governmental embrace? I couldn't find ONE; so I see no reason to believe that Snowden would have been treated any differently had he stuck around.
Of course, the government is not alone-- media wants to see him fried too. Media loves scandal and is drooling at the opportunity to cover the story any way they can. The fact he went abroad to disseminate what is viewed as domestic media fodder, not surprisingly, is met with disdain-- how dare he take it elsewhere, ffing traitor/coward/criminal etc. But it's not like sticking around would have served to illuminate the issue any better-- that's just a convenient spin for those who have their own interests to serve...likely, the status quo.

[jimnyc]

Not my attention; but I'm less inclined to buy into the obfuscation of the matter. Look at the Drake example I gave; the center of attention was still upon him and his trial. It certainly didn't reveal anyone in Congress with the "nads" to see an inquiry into what had happened. In fact, they redacted the relevant portions on what was happening and doubled down on the laws which allowed the surveillance activities to come to occur in the first place. Is it reasonable to believe that maybe now things are different? It's possible I guess, but not likely; but what do I know. However, I'm guessing someone with secure access to classified documents is astutely aware of just how improbable an exposé would result any differently based upon whether they stuck around. Didn't work for drake, nor manning and there's a lot more. Do you have an example of someone in the last decade who exposed the government spying on its own people that resulted in governmental embrace? I couldn't find ONE; so I see no reason to believe that Snowden would have been treated any differently had he stuck around.
Of course, the government is not alone-- media wants to see him fried too. Media loves scandal and is drooling at the opportunity to cover the story any way they can. The fact he went abroad to disseminate what is viewed as domestic media fodder, not surprisingly, is met with disdain-- how dare he take it elsewhere, ffing traitor/coward/criminal etc. But it's not like sticking around would have served to illuminate the issue any better-- that's just a convenient spin for those who have their own interests to serve...likely, the status quo.

I highly doubt you'll find Congress embracing anything that makes them look negative. But there are many instances, plenty in the US, to show that taking the legal route won't leave you in jail or dead - maybe jail if you break the law though. But I still stay with my original stance, past difficulties doesn't make someone immune from the law. Sure, he's 'free' to take an alternate route to ensure the entire world hears what he has to say, or reads what he stole - but he must then deal with any consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers

[logroller]

I highly doubt you'll find Congress embracing anything that makes them look negative. But there are many instances, plenty in the US, to show that taking the legal route won't leave you in jail or dead - maybe jail if you break the law though. But I still stay with my original stance, past difficulties doesn't make someone immune from the law. Sure, he's 'free' to take an alternate route to ensure the entire world hears what he has to say, or reads what he stole - but he must then deal with any consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
He is dealing with the consequences of his actions. He's a burned spy on the lam and forever will he need to looking over his shoulder.
The question is, or should be IMO, will the plethora of government officials complicit in the acts be held accountable for their actions?
Signs point to no. And to be honest, were I in the same position as drake or snowden, I'd probably of kept my mouth shut believing that no good would come of it anyway-- it's just a moral exercise to blow the whistle. More hope and change==> forward.

[jimnyc]

He is dealing with the consequences of his actions. He's a burned spy on the lam and forever will he need to looking over his shoulder.
The question is, or should be IMO, will the plethora of government officials complicit in the acts be held accountable for their actions?
Signs point to no. And to be honest, were I in the same position as drake or snowden, I'd probably of kept my mouth shut believing that no good would come of it anyway-- it's just a moral exercise to blow the whistle. More hope and change==> forward.

But he's dealing with the consequences in HIS way, not the American way, which is with due process and the courts. Granted one is innocent until found guilty - but it's hard to determine that when the man not avoiding the consequences is avoiding our justice system.

[BillyBob]

But he's dealing with the consequences in HIS way, not the American way, which is with due process and the courts.


I don't blame him, does anyone still trust the justice system? Especially with Eric Holder at the helm?

[jimnyc]

I don't blame him, does anyone still trust the justice system? Especially with Eric Holder at the helm?

Seems wrong to me to try and go around the justice system, because one is angry about someone else going around the system. Change CAN happen without breaking the law to get there.

We need a new president, and a new AG for sure, and hundreds of new people in Washington at a bare minimum. There need to be limits to what they can do and they need to be able to be held accountable just like every other citizen of our country. For much longer than just this week, we need some serious change and accountability in Washington. There also needs to be change and guidelines in place for the FBI/CIA/NSA and others to limit what they can do with their own citizens.

[BillyBob]

Seems wrong to me to try and go around the justice system, because one is angry about someone else going around the system. Change CAN happen without breaking the law to get there.

We need a new president, and a new AG for sure, and hundreds of new people in Washington at a bare minimum. There need to be limits to what they can do and they need to be able to be held accountable just like every other citizen of our country. For much longer than just this week, we need some serious change and accountability in Washington. There also needs to be change and guidelines in place for the FBI/CIA/NSA and others to limit what they can do with their own citizens.


All that is true but in the meantime Obama and Holder are still in charge of the Justice system. He doesn't stand a chance with them. And if you think about it, that is an example of what everyone is afraid of and why he exposed them.

[logroller]

Seems wrong to me to try and go around the justice system, because one is angry about someone else going around the system. Change CAN happen without breaking the law to get there.

We need a new president, and a new AG for sure, and hundreds of new people in Washington at a bare minimum. There need to be limits to what they can do and they need to be able to be held accountable just like every other citizen of our country. For much longer than just this week, we need some serious change and accountability in Washington. There also needs to be change and guidelines in place for the FBI/CIA/NSA and others to limit what they can do with their own citizens.
Seems to be you've an expectation of getting an omelette in a vegan restaurant. It's an untenable position to have unfettered government authority and legal limits upon exposing their wrongdoing. So what's more pressing: order or principles? Do you accept some broken eggs or accept there's no longer an omelette?

[fj1200]

As I posted he was a PO'd liberal who was disappointed with Obama and his policies

I thought with liberals it was always party over politics. :dunno:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Seems to be you've an expectation of getting an omelette in a vegan restaurant. It's an untenable position to have unfettered government authority and legal limits upon exposing their wrongdoing. So what's more pressing: order or principles? Do you accept some broken eggs or accept there's no longer an omelette? Ok, Log if we are going to cook lets clear the damn kitchen. For the rascals in there now are shatting in the stew, pissing in the chicken soup and spitting on every plate they send out to we the customers. NO DAMN JUSTIFYING THAT BY SAYING, WELL HELL GOT TO BREAK A FEW EGGS TO MAKE AN OMELLETTE. MOST OF US WANT OUT DAMN EGGS CLEAN AND SANITARY . THE FFING CREW IN THERE NOW ARE SO DAMN CORRUPT THAT THEY SHOULD BE BEAT UNTIL THEY CRY FOR MERCY THEN THEIR SORRY FFING ASSES THROWN IN JAIL FOR ABOUT 50 YEARS. You see , we have this thing called a Constitution and it once was the Authority over government and did a great job of keeping the bastards in line. Now its a rag they shat on daily and hold in contempt. Hoss, there ain't no damn justifying that no matter how one tries to spin it. The ffing bastards should ALL be in jail awaiting there damn day in court. Our population only 60 years ago would have marched to Washington and ran the ffing son of bitches out of town on a damn rail, lousy ass treasonous President and all. By the way, let me emphasis this , so nobody ever misses my message. FFFKKKKKE THAT SORRY BASTARD TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! --TYR

[logroller]

Ok, Log if we are going to cook lets clear the damn kitchen. For the rascals in there now are shatting in the stew, pissing in the chicken soup and spitting on every plate they send out to we the customers. NO DAMN JUSTIFYING THAT BY SAYING, WELL HELL GOT TO BREAK A FEW EGGS TO MAKE AN OMELLETTE. MOST OF US WANT OUT DAMN EGGS CLEAN AND SANITARY . THE FFING CREW IN THERE NOW ARE SO DAMN CORRUPT THAT THEY SHOULD BE BEAT UNTIL THEY CRY FOR MERCY THEN THEIR SORRY FFING ASSES THROWN IN JAIL FOR ABOUT 50 YEARS. You see , we have this thing called a Constitution and it once was the Authority over government and did a great job of keeping the bastards in line. Now its a rag they shat on daily and hold in contempt. Hoss, there ain't no damn justifying that no matter how one tries to spin it. The ffing bastards should ALL be in jail awaiting there damn day in court. Our population only 60 years ago would have marched to Washington and ran the ffing son of bitches out of town on a damn rail, lousy ass treasonous President and all. By the way, let me emphasis this , so nobody ever misses my message. FFFKKKKKE THAT SORRY BASTARD TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! --TYR
Who, snowden? Have you been following my posts or just picked one and jumped to conclusions? Because I've been speaking to the sometimes necessary breaking of laws to expose corruption, not excusing the actions of government.

[red states rule]

It's "obvious" that he didn't abide by the terms of his security clearance; not that he wasn't properly vetted. As I pointed out, look a t Thomas drake-- a highly-decorated career soldier that went through the proper channels and was, along with others, punished for it. If you can't see that those policies extend beyond Obama, dems and liberals, than you can't see the forest for the trees. It's the exposure of government corruption that is on trial here.

A po'd liberal? Seriously rsr, not everything is partisan politics. Obama and bush both spied on Americans and broke laws in doing so. Doesn't that bother you- or is that just a liberal concern?

Did you read the OP LR? It clearly outline how this guy was heartbroken over Obama's broken campaign promises and how the troops behaved while in combat.

Most idiots that leak such info usually have a political motive. If you do not believe that you are more naive then I thought

And he did not have to flee out of the country. There were many avenues he could have taken to get his message out. Like most young libs he was out "to change things" and he only painted a huge bulls-eye on his back

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who, snowden? Have you been following my posts or just picked one and jumped to conclusions? Because I've been speaking to the sometimes necessary breaking of laws to expose corruption, not excusing the actions of government.
Do you accept some broken eggs or accept there's no longer an omelette?
^^^^^^I was answering that question you posed , not attacking you personally or implying that you were excusing corruption in government. Trust me my conclusions about our government and Obama have not been "jumped to" my friend. I figured the bastard out when he was still a candidate running for the Presidency. I do agree with you , that if it takes breaking a law to expose a major corruption in government sometimes its appropriate to do so. Each case being decided right or wrong on its own specific merits. As of now some of the actions that Snowden has engaged in since breaking the news of the massive illegal all encompassing spying action by our government are not to my liking. My rant perhaps could have more clear on truly where my anger lay. Although I've long ago accepted that my name was on a government list and now nobody can reasonable dispute that as I'm very outspoken in my criticism regardless of what form of communication I use. I've cursed the lying weasel like the dog e is on the phone with my family hundreds of times. However never made a threat. Always insist any action taken against the ffing scum be legal. -Tyr

[logroller]

Did you read the OP LR? It clearly outline how this guy was heartbroken over Obama's broken campaign promises and how the troops behaved while in combat.

Campaign promises like a more transparent government; that's just a liberal thing?
Or serving to help Iraq gain freedom, not just killing Arabs; that's lib thing too?
Well you should be happier than a clam; cause the government is as subversive as it ever was and hundreds of thousands of Arabs are dead. Although, I didn't recall killing of Arabs as being one of the reasons we went into Iraq, although I suppose that harkens back to the no transparency in government thing non-liberals promote.


Most idiots that leak such info usually have a political motive. If you do not believe that you are more naive then I thought
political =/= partisan. Like transparency in govt; that's a political issue; but I don't believe that's partisan. Do you? Is transparency in government a lib thing?


And he did not have to flee out of the country. There were many avenues he could have taken to get his message out. Like most young libs he was out "to change things" and he only painted a huge bulls-eye on his back
Avenues like what, exactly? I've already shown that even a high ranking officials were relentlessly investigated and threatened after taking the legal route. Do you think this guy, a 20 something college drop out three months on the job is going to be granted an audience with intelligence committee officials???? Now who's being naive? The only thing that's different is the bullseye is on his back and not his forehead.

[jimnyc]

Avenues like what, exactly? I've already shown that even a high ranking officials were relentlessly investigated and threatened after taking the legal route. Do you think this guy, a 20 something college drop out three months on the job is going to be granted an audience with intelligence committee officials???? Now who's being naive? The only thing that's different is the bullseye is on his back and not his forehead.

3 months maybe, but he also worked prior to that with the NSA and CIA since 2007. He wasn't fresh out of HS. And I've seen lesser folks heard from within Congress. I posted the link to famous whistlblowers, very, very few of them were investigated and threatened. There were only a few high profile cases that went that route. And how many of these whistleblowers DON'T we hear about. A handful of cases going awry doesn't give one immunity from the law.

[logroller]

3 months maybe, but he also worked prior to that with the NSA and CIA since 2007. He wasn't fresh out of HS. And I've seen lesser folks heard from within Congress. I posted the link to famous whistlblowers, very, very few of them were investigated and threatened. There were only a few high profile cases that went that route. And how many of these whistleblowers DON'T we hear about. A handful of cases going awry doesn't give one immunity from the law.
I know. The 3 month thing was said tongue in cheek. I've too heard lesser people speak to congress, but not national security issues of a classified nature. You are right, we likely DON'T hear about most; nature of the beast on national security. Maybe it's because it's handled properly, and the issues are resolved; or maybe not. Which is the case before us here re: domestic surveillance? Need I point to the glaring truth that, not only were the issues exposed through the drake case (again, through proper channels) not resolved, but the investigation into those who exposed the truth (legally or not) have increased. These are the facts. I'm not saying that any and all leaks are justified; I've not suggested that leaks should never be punished. But n certain cases, it's not the leak that is at the crux of the issue.

It requires a healthy dollop of trust; and when the proper legal route was pursued, and exposed what were illegal activities, again, We must trust that govt amend their actions. They have not; in fact, they've doubled down and became even more subversive and aggressive towards those who dare challenge the administration, brought proper channels or not. But what's the old saying, fool me once... it would appear our trust is being tried here and overt and public shaming of the current and previous administration and congresses is something that is well-deserved and if that means a few laws gotta get broken to reveal government corruption at the highest levels and collusion to repeatedly defraud the american public of their protected rights, then I can excuse that as a necessary evil. The same would apply to government spying on us, but theirs this whole constitutional thing (supposedly, the supreme law of the land) that'll need to be changed to accommodate such. Get that amended by congress and the states and The snowdens of the world won't have an audience for anything more than an execution. Until then, I hesitant to condemn someone who exposes the facts surrounding government lies and corruption.

[red states rule]

Campaign promises like a more transparent government; that's just a liberal thing?
Or serving to help Iraq gain freedom, not just killing Arabs; that's lib thing too?
Well you should be happier than a clam; cause the government is as subversive as it ever was and hundreds of thousands of Arabs are dead. Although, I didn't recall killing of Arabs as being one of the reasons we went into Iraq, although I suppose that harkens back to the no transparency in government thing non-liberals promote.

political =/= partisan. Like transparency in govt; that's a political issue; but I don't believe that's partisan. Do you? Is transparency in government a lib thing?

Avenues like what, exactly? I've already shown that even a high ranking officials were relentlessly investigated and threatened after taking the legal route. Do you think this guy, a 20 something college drop out three months on the job is going to be granted an audience with intelligence committee officials???? Now who's being naive? The only thing that's different is the bullseye is on his back and not his forehead.

It is amazing to watch the liberal mind at work. You are amazing LR but I am not surprised

Being a liberal you live in a constant state of denial and this issue proves that once again. Even when he admits he is a disappointed liberal and Obama voter you seem to want to dismiss those motives for his actions

I for one do not see what the issue is with what the government is doing. Unlike libs who during the Bush years wanted impeachment over Bush's wiretaps - those same people are cool with what Obama is doing. (Yes about 8% or R's also flipped for political reason)

As far a this idiot getting his message out, if you think he could not have been granted an audience somewhere before a House commentate - you are the naive. As far as transparency I find is comical the way libs dismiss this as - well everybody does it. Seems there are more people thinking like Gabby on the left everyday

[logroller]

It is amazing to watch the liberal mind at work. You are amazing LR but I am not surprised

Being a liberal you live in a constant state of denial and this issue proves that once again.
I object to your attribution of my being liberal. More liberal than you perhaps; but I'm not a liberal.


Even when he admits he is a disappointed liberal and Obama voter you seem to want to dismiss those motives for his actions
he admitted to being disappointed in Obama. Quit making shit up.


I for one do not see what the issue is with what the government is doing.
The US government Spying on Americans= A-OK. Got it. I disagree. Suppose that because I'm to the left of fascism.


Unlike libs who during the Bush years wanted impeachment over Bush's wiretaps - those same people are cool with what Obama is doing. (Yes about 8% or R's also flipped for political reason)

political reasons like, it's unconstitutional. I was against then and now.


As far a this idiot getting his message out, if you think he could not have been granted an audience somewhere before a House commentate - you are the naive.
Show me one instance of a Low-level nsa agent being granted an audience with congress. Put up or shut up.


As far as transparency I find is comical the way libs dismiss this as - well everybody does it. Seems there are more people thinking like Gabby on the left everyday
I don't dismiss it, and I'm a lib according to you; yet You have twice now dodged the question: Is wanting a transparent government a lib thing; yes or no?

[red states rule]

I object to your attribution of my being liberal. More liberal than you perhaps; but I'm not a liberal.

he admitted to being disappointed in Obama. Quit making shit up.

The US government Spying on Americans= A-OK. Got it. I disagree. Suppose that because I'm to the left of fascism.

political reasons like, it's unconstitutional. I was against then and now.

Show me one instance of a Low-level nsa agent being granted an audience with congress. Put up or shut up.

I don't dismiss it, and I'm a lib according to you; yet You have twice now dodged the question: Is wanting a transparent government a lib thing; yes or no?

LR there is transparency and then there is security. Millions of fools, including your hero, bought what Obama was selling TWICE. Transparency to Obama is never answering questions and if you continue to ask them - then the entire weight of the Federal government will come down upon you

Many things must be kept secret for national security reason and this was one of them. Now China and Russia want this guy and are eager to know what he knows. I do ot see where the Constitution was violated with the collection on phone numbers with no names and no recorded conversations. You know damn well I am no fan of Obama - but unlike most libs - I call it as I see it

You also know damn well if he would have approached some well know R's on Capital Hill the chance to score political points would have gotten him the attention he wanted - but he fled to Hong Kong? Not a good sign

YOu are the one who tried to dismiss his poltiial reasons for doing what he did. Once again your liberal tolerance is starting to ooze to the surface. Damn pesky facts keep getting in the way of your holier than thou reasoning for this guy

[logroller]

LR there is transparency and then there is security. Millions of fools, including your hero, bought what Obama was selling TWICE. Transparency to Obama is never answering questions and if you continue to ask them - then the entire weight of the Federal government will come down upon you
Huh? My hero? I didn't vote for him and don't support his unconstitutional actions nor his clandestine nature nor his oppression of those who expose the truth of his actions.


Many things must be kept secret for national security reason and this was one of them. Now China and Russia want this guy and are eager to know what he knows. I do ot see where the Constitution was violated with the collection on phone numbers with no names and no recorded conversations.
What's "this"? And if you believe that "no recordings" etc were collected, you're fooling yourself. They already peruse emails, and given the track record since the patriot was first passed, it stands to reason that the supposed limits (ie FISC) aren't really limits at all. Just don't get caught; or rather, don't expose it.


You know damn well I am no fan of Obama - but unlike most libs - I call it as I see it
[QUOTE=red states rule;646597]
I understand, you trust the government to protect you...Well maybe those small government NPOs are a threat to national security too. And maybe we're better off thinking Benghazi was about a movie. And maybe fast and the furious was a phenomal way to track drug cartel activity at the border. I call it as I see it too. The government having continuos and unfettered access to private communications is too temptuous.
[QUOTE=red states rule;646597]
You also know damn well if he would have approached some well know R's on Capital Hill the chance to score political points would have gotten him the attention he wanted -

Like drake did? Roarden(sp)? Oh no, that's right; they were investigated for criminal activity by both a republican and democratic administration. I can name half a dozen whistleblowers, high ranking no less, that didn't receive any congressional "political points". No. they were labelled leakers and fired and their having commented to congressional officials was the impetus of their being investigated. You can't name one low level person that was granted any audience, but somehow you expect another to "know damn well" it's certain. Conjecture at best.


but he fled to Hong Kong? Not a good sign
As opposed to what, indefinite detention? How's that manning case coming along? Snowden didn't even expose any persons/ assets etc like manning did. Because he didn't wish to harm anyone, just show what's going on.


YOu are the one who tried to dismiss his poltiial reasons for doing what he did.
Dismiss what? I believe they're still investigating what his motives may have been. So what am I to dismiss. He claims he did to increase the public awareness of what government is doing in the name of security that violates the public trust: that's transparency. what, exactly, did he expose that was a threat to national security? Whose lives to he put in danger? Show me one document that implicated a person or placed a person at risk. One document that did that; show it. Prove that he did anything other than expose activities that cast the government in a bad light.


Once again your liberal tolerance is starting to ooze to the surface. Damn pesky facts keep getting in the way of your holier than thou reasoning for this guy
tolerance of what -- your subterfuge? You can't put up one single instance of a low ranking g-man being received well for exposing the government breaking the law. But continually claim it is possible, the you call me names hopes of youll get a rise. Believe it or not, I've been incredibly tolerant of this, but my patience is wearing thin. Lay off the lies about me. I feel about that like you feel about "her".

[red states rule]

Huh? My hero? I didn't vote for him and don't support his unconstitutional actions nor his clandestine nature nor his oppression of those who expose the truth of his actions.

What's "this"? And if you believe that "no recordings" etc were collected, you're fooling yourself. They already peruse emails, and given the track record since the patriot was first passed, it stands to reason that the supposed limits (ie FISC) aren't really limits at all. Just don't get caught; or rather, don't expose it.
[QUOTE=red states rule;646597]
You know damn well I am no fan of Obama - but unlike most libs - I call it as I see it
[QUOTE=red states rule;646597]
I understand, you trust the government to protect you...Well maybe those small government NPOs are a threat to national security too. And maybe we're better off thinking Benghazi was about a movie. And maybe fast and the furious was a phenomal way to track drug cartel activity at the border. I call it as I see it too. The government having continuos and unfettered access to private communications is too temptuous.

Like drake did? Roarden(sp)? Oh no, that's right; they were investigated for criminal activity by both a republican and democratic administration. I can name half a dozen whistleblowers, high ranking no less, that didn't receive any congressional "political points". No. they were labelled leakers and fired and their having commented to congressional officials was the impetus of their being investigated. You can't name one low level person that was granted any audience, but somehow you expect another to "know damn well" it's certain. Conjecture at best.

As opposed to what, indefinite detention? How's that manning case coming along? Snowden didn't even expose any persons/ assets etc like manning did. Because he didn't wish to harm anyone, just show what's going on.

Dismiss what? I believe they're still investigating what his motives may have been. So what am I to dismiss. He claims he did to increase the public awareness of what government is doing in the name of security that violates the public trust: that's transparency. what, exactly, did he expose that was a threat to national security? Whose lives to he put in danger? Show me one document that implicated a person or placed a person at risk. One document that did that; show it. Prove that he did anything other than expose activities that cast the government in a bad light.

tolerance of what -- your subterfuge? You can't put up one single instance of a low ranking g-man being received well for exposing the government breaking the law. But continually claim it is possible, the you call me names hopes of youll get a rise. Believe it or not, I've been incredibly tolerant of this, but my patience is wearing thin. Lay off the lies about me. I feel about that like you feel about "her".

Eh, I was referring to Snowden LR as he appears to be a hero to you and not a traitor

So you know the government is recording trillions of phone calls per day? Please list your source LR I would love to read it. I am no fan of Obama but I do not see how this is so bad as some think. meanwhile the same people who are outraged over this ignore the murder of 4 people. the IRS targeting US citizens for their political beliefs. The DOJ gun running operation into Mexico with the intent to have the guns used in crimes so more gun laws could be passed here in the US.

Snowden could have gotten attention LR. I have seen Congress have Hollywood actors testify as "experts" on many topics. many you probably support. Yes LR I can see how you have "been incredibly tolerant". Just as most liberals are when the facts get in the way of their mythical facts

I am not calling you names LR. You are a liberal and the only way you can overcome the affliction is to admit you have a problem. That is the first step on the road to recovery

[jimnyc]

I can handle Snowden releasing information about the calls. I think he should still face consequences for those actions, based on his contractual obligations, and likely theft. Had he not left the country, he still likley would have ended up in front of Congress, and very well may have ended up with a light sentence, if he got a soft jury or a judge. I don't know if there would be mandatory sentencing guidelines in effect or not.

But I don't care if the entire world knows that each country involves itself in espionage, to include hacking. It's something everyone knows but yet doesn't know factually. But an intel agent, that had his fingers IN the intel, to go to a foreign country and "confirm" it and admit he and our country committed "crimes", that's too much. They now say he left the installation he was at with a USB stick full of documents, but they still don't know what. They say he got much further into systems than he should have been able to, and that USB devices should have been non-functional on the computers. It appears this installation is due for some security upgrades. But whether easily accessible or not, it's definitely not something we share with foreign governments.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c11011620130618120100.jpg

[aboutime]

Every American should be PISSED at Snowden.

He broke the law. Violated his Oath, and Signature agreement of NON-DISCLOSURE with the U.S. Government.

That's It. He is a FELON. Period.

If you are an American and think Snowden is a Hero. That also means YOU THINK OBAMA IS A HERO TOO!

After all. Obama authorized the Release of CLASSIFIED Information for a Movie called "ZERO DARK THIRTY".

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c11018620130620120100.jpg

[Gaffer]

Every American should be PISSED at Snowden.

He broke the law. Violated his Oath, and Signature agreement of NON-DISCLOSURE with the U.S. Government.

That's It. He is a FELON. Period.

If you are an American and think Snowden is a Hero. That also means YOU THINK OBAMA IS A HERO TOO!

After all. Obama authorized the Release of CLASSIFIED Information for a Movie called "ZERO DARK THIRTY".

I'm not pissed at Snowden. All he did was release stuff that I already figured out through logic and experience. I figured it out years ago. The govt monitors and tracks everyone. He just made it known to the uninformed nitwits. He must now be made an example of to keep others in line. He hasn't informed the terrorist and enemies of anything they didn't already know. If I can figure these things out I'm sure our enemies can too. After all they are all on good terms with the dark one.

[jimnyc]

I'm not pissed at Snowden. All he did was release stuff that I already figured out through logic and experience. I figured it out years ago. The govt monitors and tracks everyone. He just made it known to the uninformed nitwits. He must now be made an example of to keep others in line. He hasn't informed the terrorist and enemies of anything they didn't already know. If I can figure these things out I'm sure our enemies can too. After all they are all on good terms with the dark one.

I can understand that based on the NSA stuff and the phone calls - but what about his 'confirmation' to the Chinese that he saw hacking against them? While we all may have suspected this type of activity between countries for some time - a person with inside knowledge, via working there, confirming this to a foreign government, is a little different than suspicions. It's already created international tensions. If anyone doubts for a second that the Chinese aren't doing the same to various countries, they are delusional. But imagine a Chinese analyst coming here and making statements of guilt about his countries activities? I don't think he would be looked at as a hero, and sure wouldn't be welcome back to his country!

[aboutime]

I'm not pissed at Snowden. All he did was release stuff that I already figured out through logic and experience. I figured it out years ago. The govt monitors and tracks everyone. He just made it known to the uninformed nitwits. He must now be made an example of to keep others in line. He hasn't informed the terrorist and enemies of anything they didn't already know. If I can figure these things out I'm sure our enemies can too. After all they are all on good terms with the dark one.


We don't need to be pissed. No matter how we feel about Snowden. He did break the law.

[Gaffer]

I can understand that based on the NSA stuff and the phone calls - but what about his 'confirmation' to the Chinese that he saw hacking against them? While we all may have suspected this type of activity between countries for some time - a person with inside knowledge, via working there, confirming this to a foreign government, is a little different than suspicions. It's already created international tensions. If anyone doubts for a second that the Chinese aren't doing the same to various countries, they are delusional. But imagine a Chinese analyst coming here and making statements of guilt about his countries activities? I don't think he would be looked at as a hero, and sure wouldn't be welcome back to his country!

I said before I have a problem with his running to China. If he had gone on to Iceland as he first said, I would not be bothered about it. And then there is the possibility that China wouldn't let him leave. I'm sure he's sing like a nun at a Christmas pageant right now. And probably wishing he had moved on before breaking the story. But I really suspect the NSA and govt are after him for vengeance rather than justice. They must keep their people in line.

I'm so outraged with our govt today that I can't be condemning of this guy without more facts about what he actually revealed and whether it actually endangered operatives or anyone else.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I said before I have a problem with his running to China. If he had gone on to Iceland as he first said, I would not be bothered about it. And then there is the possibility that China wouldn't let him leave. I'm sure he's sing like a nun at a Christmas pageant right now. And probably wishing he had moved on before breaking the story. But I really suspect the NSA and govt are after him for vengeance rather than justice. They must keep their people in line.

I'm so outraged with our govt today that I can't be condemning of this guy without more facts about what he actually revealed and whether it actually endangered operatives or anyone else. Blanket spying on ALL American citizens proves we no longer have a Constitutional government! I've known this ever since Obama first stepped into power. The day he was sworn in Constitutional government died. He has been operating outside the Constitution further and further as he engaged in his destructive plan to fundamentally change this nation. What he has been doing all along is nothing short of treason. But hey, treason is fashionable these days , right? The Republic will fall. The ever so evident lack of outrage and action against this traitor proves we are in the midst of that fall. My guess is it's engineered to take 16 years -- the first 8 years for obama and last 8 years for Hillary. That is quite likely the plan IMHO. WHO COULD HAVE EVER ENVISIONED THESE RADICAL CHANGES HAVING BEEN MADE SO FAR IN LESS THAN 5 YEARS? I DID...........-Tyr

[logroller]

Blanket spying on ALL American citizens proves we no longer have a Constitutional government! I've known this ever since Obama first stepped into power. The day he was sworn in Constitutional government died. He has been operating outside the Constitution further and further as he engaged in his destructive plan to fundamentally change this nation. What he has been doing all along is nothing short of treason. But hey, treason is fashionable these days , right? The Republic will fall. The ever so evident lack of outrage and action against this traitor proves we are in the midst of that fall. My guess is it's engineered to take 16 years -- the first 8 years for obama and last 8 years for Hillary. That is quite likely the plan IMHO. WHO COULD HAVE EVER ENVISIONED THESE RADICAL CHANGES HAVING BEEN MADE SO FAR IN LESS THAN 5 YEARS? I DID...........-Tyr
The changes have been over twelve years, not five; a lot of people envisioned exactly what's going on when the patriot act amendments were passed in 2001. But they were either dismissed as nutters or shamed as a terrorist-enablers for not being willing to do what was 'necessary' to stop the terrorists.

[jimnyc]

The changes have been over twelve years, not five; a lot of people envisioned exactly what's going on when the patriot act amendments were passed in 2001. But they were either dismissed as nutters or shamed as a terrorist-enablers for not being willing to do what was 'necessary' to stop the terrorists.

I still say it goes back to WHO approved of and voted on this crap. They made approvals and voted for it early, and then again in 2006, and they mostly all got re-elected. Then it received more revisions and extensions under Obama, and I don't see people calling for heads.

Doing what was necessary and much of the patriot act is a good thing. But you would be EXTREMELY hard pressed to find anywhere where the NSA activity was publicized and people dismissed others who disagreed with it. This isn't about people who dismissed, or called other nutters - but MUCH more about the senators that approved this, behind the publics back, and continued to do so.

I've looked the best I could to find out what committee and members voted specifically on this and am coming up empty. Those members need to be identified so that THEY can be dismissed in the next election.

[Gaffer]

All presidential executive orders along with appointments should be made null and void after the president is out of office. That way there are no doors left open for the next one to sneak in more crap. And cleans out all the useless appointees that were rewarded for getting the president elected and hang on to undermine the next one if he is not of the same party. along with term limits on the house and senate.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The changes have been over twelve years, not five; a lot of people envisioned exactly what's going on when the patriot act amendments were passed in 2001. But they were either dismissed as nutters or shamed as a terrorist-enablers for not being willing to do what was 'necessary' to stop the terrorists. I disagree with that. The time of the start of the overthrow is when Obama was crowned king. Bush never was. Admittedly Bush help set the table but did not do so to follow the agenda Obama deliberately follows. Obama took something that had not the proper safeguards and corrupted it to suit his own ends. The nation was ripe for this and they knew it. How did they know it? Obama winning is how they knew. The people were gullible and stupid enough to vote him in and that was all they needed as confirmation they could do as they damn well pleased. And by God they are were right! After this second time of voting the traitorous bastard in they know its time to push ahead even faster, possibly not even wait for Hillary's 8 years to finish the job. Although I suspect that they will still need at least her first 4 years to get rrrrrr done.. . -Tyr

[logroller]

I disagree with that. The time of the start of the overthrow is when Obama was crowned king. Bush never was. Admittedly Bush help set the table but did not do so to follow the agenda Obama deliberately follows. Obama took something that had not the proper safeguards and corrupted it to suit his own ends. The nation was ripe for this and they knew it. How did they know it? Obama winning is how they knew. The people were gullible and stupid enough to vote him in and that was all they needed as confirmation they could do as they damn well pleased. And by God they are were right! After this second time of voting the traitorous bastard in they know its time to push ahead even faster, possibly not even wait for Hillary's 8 years to finish the job. Although I suspect that they will still need at least her first 4 years to get rrrrrr done.. . -Tyr
Bush never was? I've shown several examples of unconstitutional operations taken while bush was in office. Bush didn't just set the table, he designed the menu, recipes and service, then served it up. Nothing changed in this regard since Obama. Obama certainly is culpable, he could have ended the policies of his predecessor instead of going full steam ahead with them and crushing anyone who dare expose the illegitimacy.

[jimnyc]

Bush never was? I've shown several examples of unconstitutional operations taken while bush was in office. Bush didn't just set the table, he designed the menu, recipes and service, then served it up. Nothing changed in this regard since Obama. Obama certainly is culpable, he could have ended the policies of his predecessor instead of going full steam ahead with them and crushing anyone who dare expose the illegitimacy.

My main question is (to the government, not you), is WHEN, what specific date did the NSA get this authorization. WHO specifically gave them authorization and which members of congress made up this committee? Was it power grabs from the WH? Obama says it was fully authorized by Congress. We need answers to these questions. No doubt a lot of crap happened under both watches, but on this specific instance, recording calls from everyone, I would like facts. We can't even be sure who to toss blame at without this, and that's probably exactly how they want it.

[logroller]

My main question is (to the government, not you), is WHEN, what specific date did the NSA get this authorization. WHO specifically gave them authorization and which members of congress made up this committee? Was it power grabs from the WH? Obama says it was fully authorized by Congress. We need answers to these questions. No doubt a lot of crap happened under both watches, but on this specific instance, recording calls from everyone, I would like facts. We can't even be sure who to toss blame at without this, and that's probably exactly how they want it.
The actual authorization; as in some internal memo saying "spy on americans"? You want the long answer or the short one? Short answer: it's classified. Long answer: which time, which program? There have been several rounds of fisa amendments, each with separate and particular considerations and executive authorizations that led to programs that likely violate the us constitution. 2001 got the ball Rollin with the patriot act, then again in 2007 with the protect America act, and soon after with the fisa amendments act of 2008. The specifics are shrouded in longwinded bills, multiple committees and congresses, but the names and supporters, committees etc are available.
here's the 2008 amendment bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.6304:

the 2007 bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S1927:

the patriot act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.3162:

[red states rule]

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/facebook-nsa-edward-snowden-cia-confession-ecards-someecards.png

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bush never was? I've shown several examples of unconstitutional operations taken while bush was in office. Bush didn't just set the table, he designed the menu, recipes and service, then served it up. Nothing changed in this regard since Obama. Obama certainly is culpable, he could have ended the policies of his predecessor instead of going full steam ahead with them and crushing anyone who dare expose the illegitimacy. Sorry, you'll not rope me into defending Bush on this issue. Bush is not prez now, not trashing the Constitution and not actively engaged in stomping all over the Constitution. Obama clearly is! We could go all the way back to mistakes made by Trumann, Wilson and FDR TOO. THE SUBJECT IS WHAT IS GOING ON NOW AND NOW IT'S OBAMA SPITTING ON OUR RIGHTS . And doing so unlike any other president in history.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Bush never was? I've shown several examples of unconstitutional operations taken while bush was in office. Bush didn't just set the table, he designed the menu, recipes and service, then served it up. Nothing changed in this regard since Obama. Obama certainly is culpable, he could have ended the policies of his predecessor instead of going full steam ahead with them and crushing anyone who dare expose the illegitimacy.


Log. If all you insist about Bush is, by some chance, actually true, and real. Why then, did the entire membership of Congress, at about 535 people....never question the Unconstitutionality of everything you insist Bush did???

Not a difficult question. Other than...you cannot create your own facts, and call them the truth...when they are known lies.

[red states rule]

Log. If all you insist about Bush is, by some chance, actually true, and real. Why then, did the entire membership of Congress, at about 535 people....never question the Unconstitutionality of everything you insist Bush did???

Not a difficult question. Other than...you cannot create your own facts, and call them the truth...when they are known lies.

That is all libs like LR have left AT - it is Bush's fault. Now that LR's "hero" has fled to countries where if you speak out against the government you are sent to prison or killed- he has to change the subject and alter his defense of the little coward. Next up. LR may post how it was really Karl Rove who was behind the leaks

[red states rule]

Bush never was? I've shown several examples of unconstitutional operations taken while bush was in office. Bush didn't just set the table, he designed the menu, recipes and service, then served it up. Nothing changed in this regard since Obama. Obama certainly is culpable, he could have ended the policies of his predecessor instead of going full steam ahead with them and crushing anyone who dare expose the illegitimacy.

You have been reading to many of Gabby's posts LR. This may come as a shock to you but Bush is no longer in office. I can understand your desperation however. Your guy is probably out there selling out the US and you have to find some way to save face and change the subject

[red states rule]

Looks like LR has given up,his hero worshiping of Snowden

Meanwhile, Obama is toyed with and humilated by Putin


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20130625-Putin20130624044038.jpg

[red states rule]

I can understand that based on the NSA stuff and the phone calls - but what about his 'confirmation' to the Chinese that he saw hacking against them? While we all may have suspected this type of activity between countries for some time - a person with inside knowledge, via working there, confirming this to a foreign government, is a little different than suspicions. It's already created international tensions. If anyone doubts for a second that the Chinese aren't doing the same to various countries, they are delusional. But imagine a Chinese analyst coming here and making statements of guilt about his countries activities? I don't think he would be looked at as a hero, and sure wouldn't be welcome back to his country!

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg062413dAPR20130624034529.jpg

[aboutime]

You have been reading to many of Gabby's posts LR. This may come as a shock to you but Bush is no longer in office. I can understand your desperation however. Your guy is probably out there selling out the US and you have to find some way to save face and change the subject


Just wondering. Does any member happen to have the REAL ADDRESS of the "Gabby School of Educationally Challenged Idiots"???

Is it a website, or building located somewhere near a cesspool, or landfill???

[red states rule]

Just wondering. Does any member happen to have the REAL ADDRESS of the "Gabby School of Educationally Challenged Idiots"???

Is it a website, or building located somewhere near a cesspool, or landfill???

Ladies call it the Powder Room

Men call it the can

But I find it telling LR - the Hero Worshiper - has left the thread. (at lest for the time being)

[logroller]

Log. If all you insist about Bush is, by some chance, actually true, and real. Why then, did the entire membership of Congress, at about 535 people....never question the Unconstitutionality of everything you insist Bush did???

Not a difficult question. Other than...you cannot create your own facts, and call them the truth...when they are known lies.
The entire membership? So if I find one member of congress who challenged the bush administration's actions, then you're wrong.
" For example, the FBI arrested as a material witness the San Antonio radiologist Albader Al-Hazmi, who has a name like two of the hijackers, and who tried to book a flight to San Diego for a medical conference. According to his lawyer, the government held Al-Hazmi incommunicado after his arrest, and it took six days for lawyers to get access to him. After the FBI released him, his lawyer said, "This is a good lesson about how frail our processes are. It's how we treat people in difficult times like these that is the true test of the democracy and civil liberties that we brag so much about throughout the world." I agree with those statements.
--------snip------
Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.


But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.


Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.


That is why I found the antiterrorism bill originally proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush to be troubling."


Senator Russ Feingold"Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.


But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.


Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.


That is why I found the antiterrorism bill originally proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush to be troubling."


Senator Russ Feingold"Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.


But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.


Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.


That is why I found the antiterrorism bill originally proposed by Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush to be troubling."


Senator Russ Feingold, comment to the senate floor, Oct. 25,2001
http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/feingold.html
http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/01/10/102501at.html
thats before the bill even passed. Should I fast forward to 2005/2006?

[red states rule]

So LR's hero goes off to Russia and God knows where after that - and now shifts into his "freedom" speech

All while ignoring the fact his hero is probably selling us out so he can "save" the nation from itself

Liberal Logic 101 on display once again

[Noir]

Neither.

[logroller]

So LR's hero goes off to Russia and God knows where after that - and now shifts into his "freedom" speech

All while ignoring the fact his hero is probably selling us out so he can "save" the nation from itself

Liberal Logic 101 on display once again
Bump ...

He's certainly no hero; more of a coward really; but I wouldn't say he's some self-serving traitor either.


Yet again you're relegated to lies and personal attacks. Maybe that behavior gets your boyfriend excited enough to have angry sex with you, but I'm not interested.

[aboutime]

Bump ...



Yet again you're relegated to lies and personal attacks. Maybe that behavior gets your boyfriend excited enough to have angry sex with you, but I'm not interested.


Logroller. Now you're starting to remind me of jafar.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/aria_c11028420130626120100.jpg

[logroller]

Logroller. Now you're starting to remind me of jafar.
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean-- it's certainly not relevant to the thread. I'll just chalk it up as more ignorant blather from a guy whose own reflection is faintly familiar.

[aboutime]

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean-- it's certainly not relevant to the thread. I'll just chalk it up as more ignorant blather from a guy whose own reflection is faintly familiar.


Sure thing. If what you said, or tried to say was, in any way true. Why would you have any reason to respond to it??

[red states rule]

Bump ...



Yet again you're relegated to lies and personal attacks. Maybe that behavior gets your boyfriend excited enough to have angry sex with you, but I'm not interested.

Once again LR you has proven Jim had to lower the once high standards he held staff members to.

I guess you are a result of Jim's Affirmative Action plan to get a liberal on the staff - therefore he had to drastically lower the standards so you could be offered the position

[jimnyc]

Once again LR you has proven Jim had to lower the once high standards he held staff members to.

I guess you are a result of Jim's Affirmative Action plan to get a liberal on the staff - therefore he had to drastically lower the standards so you could be offered the position

RSR, you know better than this. If you have an issue with a staff member, contact me directly, but please don't use it as ammunition within a thread.

[red states rule]

RSR, you know better than this. If you have an issue with a staff member, contact me directly, but please don't use it as ammunition within a thread.

Sorry Jim, I thought I was pointing out the obvious. The issue is LR posts which are there for all to see. However, your message has been received and acknowledged

[red states rule]

Well LR should be happy now. His "hero" has a home and Obama has been publicly humiliated once again

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20130806-Strip%20Chess20130805010342.jpg