Edward Snowden poll (5/20/14): Hero or Traitor? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Very similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Historical analogies are normally pretty flawed, but this one is very close. Almost all of the questions involving Snowden's heroism or treachery were brought up in the Ellsberg case for the exact same reasons.

Ive gone back and forth on this. I now believe that if Snowden is caught he should be prosecuted for revealing state secrets. That is against the law and it HAS to be against the law if our society is to survive. But that being said, it appears that his revelations will turn out to our ultimate benefit. Therefore it's hard for me to regard him as a traitor.

Sorry, if he's a "hero" he shouldn't be prosecuted.

I didn't exactly say he was a hero. And even so, heroes who break the law should be prosecuted. Personally I would pardon the guy, but only after he received a conviction.

Some similarities. Couple big differences:

Similarities:

• Obama secretly wiretapping reporters and citizens - James Rosen of Fox, Glenn Greenwald reporter at The Guardian, and Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, to name a few - something that Liddy and the rest of Nixon's crew were prosecuted for, but which Obama's team have not been.

Differences:

• Ellsberg stood trial and won, partly because of the obsessive nature of the Nixon administration. Lord only knows what would have come out of a Snowden trial about Obama administration. The Ellsberg trial was a big piece of the fall of Nixon.
• Ellsberg revealed information about the nature of the war and the fact that the government had been hiding details about how it was going. Snowden revealed a secret program that aside from its (un)constitutionality was going fine. Hard to see what Ellsberg's actions did to help the N Vietnamese at war with the US. However Ellsberg may have revealed may be much, much more. As Dr. Detroit points out, we really don't know. At a minimum, falling into the harms of the likes of Putin and the Chinese authoritarians makes a mockery about his claims about free speech, transparency and democracy. Ellsberg never ran off to any dictators.
• Greenwald and Miranda were searched and their private data seized by the UK at the request of the Obama administration. Nixon could have only dreamed of being so bold.

The Espionage Act of 1917 is pernicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

 

[Slapdash]

Very similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Historical analogies are normally pretty flawed, but this one is very close. Almost all of the questions involving Snowden's heroism or treachery were brought up in the Ellsberg case for the exact same reasons.

Ive gone back and forth on this. I now believe that if Snowden is caught he should be prosecuted for revealing state secrets. That is against the law and it HAS to be against the law if our society is to survive. But that being said, it appears that his revelations will turn out to our ultimate benefit. Therefore it's hard for me to regard him as a traitor.

Sorry, if he's a "hero" he shouldn't be prosecuted.

I didn't exactly say he was a hero. And even so, heroes who break the law should be prosecuted. Personally I would pardon the guy, but only after he received a conviction.

Some similarities. Couple big differences:

Similarities:

• Obama secretly wiretapping reporters and citizens - James Rosen of Fox, Glenn Greenwald reporter at The Guardian, and Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, to name a few - something that Liddy and the rest of Nixon's crew were prosecuted for, but which Obama's team have not been.

Differences:

• Ellsberg stood trial and won, partly because of the obsessive nature of the Nixon administration. Lord only knows what would have come out of a Snowden trial about Obama administration. The Ellsberg trial was a big piece of the fall of Nixon.
• Ellsberg revealed information about the nature of the war and the fact that the government had been hiding details about how it was going. Snowden revealed a secret program that aside from its (un)constitutionality was going fine. Hard to see what Ellsberg's actions did to help the N Vietnamese at war with the US. However Ellsberg may have revealed may be much, much more. As Dr. Detroit points out, we really don't know. At a minimum, falling into the harms of the likes of Putin and the Chinese authoritarians makes a mockery about his claims about free speech, transparency and democracy. Ellsberg never ran off to any dictators.
• Greenwald and Miranda were searched and their private data seized by the UK at the request of the Obama administration. Nixon could have only dreamed of being so bold.

We really have no reason to assume Snowden gave them any information.

 

[Jayrok]

Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.

Not sure how you do one without the other given that these programs are global and built into the backbone of communications networks.

Can we weigh the pros vs cons on such an endeavor then? He chose to take it upon himself to perform his actions and that's that. Are there consequences? I'd say yes. The good: hey the government is monitoring social networks and has access to private phone calls and emails. Roger that, they shouldn't be doing that.

The bad: foreign governments, potential terrorist organizations, now know how the US carries out intelligence gathering operations. Can they use the info to counteract and shore up future communications? I'd say yes.

I don't presume to speak for others here... but for myself it seems the cons outweigh the pros. The government is watching.. ok, thanks for telling me this. It gives every foreign intelligence agency a head's up on how we conduct intelligence gathering? That is a bummer and could actually turn out to be a grave mistake in the long run.

It's a free country and we are entitled to our opinions on this matter. To me, if this type of surveillance helps prevent escalating terror attacks or protects american lives in any way, then I think I can put up with Google logging my Internet keystrokes. But if there is anyone that feels the same as me on this issue, we have to live with the fact that Snowden felt his personal moral views on the subject outweigh any potential problems his actions could cause for our country.

If he doesn't like how the government conducts business then, as a member of a republic, he can vote for politicians that share his views. Yeah, that is laughable. But that is the system we have in place. You can't just speak for all of us and abuse your network privileges by disclosing our nation's secrets. He signed an oath that he would not disclose classified information. He broke that oath and that is a crime for which he should be punished.

And I will reiterate that this is my opinion on the matter. I understand that it is not yours.

 

[Jayrok]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

If some IT guy has documents that destroys the country we have far bigger problems than Snowden.

Yeah, not sure how anything we have learned could destroy the country.

Think big picture. From what I understand, he didn't just tell the world that the US gov't uses surveillance systems to spy on its citizens. He disclosed blueprints and specific programs that the gov't uses and how they employ/manage them. About how they gather foreign intelligence. This type of info could be used to change communication strategies (say Al Qeida for instance) enemies employ and could set back intelligence gathering to a point where we might miss details of a plan to bring a nuclear bomb to NYC and Washington DC.

Will it happen? maybe not. Could it happen? maybe we'll find out at some point.

I just think if this causes the US to lose some type of intelligence advantage in foreign policy, then it sucks.

 

[Slapdash]

Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.

Not sure how you do one without the other given that these programs are global and built into the backbone of communications networks.

Can we weigh the pros vs cons on such an endeavor then? He chose to take it upon himself to perform his actions and that's that. Are there consequences? I'd say yes. The good: hey the government is monitoring social networks and has access to private phone calls and emails. Roger that, they shouldn't be doing that.

The bad: foreign governments, potential terrorist organizations, now know how the US carries out intelligence gathering operations. Can they use the info to counteract and shore up future communications? I'd say yes.

I don't presume to speak for others here... but for myself it seems the cons outweigh the pros. The government is watching.. ok, thanks for telling me this. It gives every foreign intelligence agency a head's up on how we conduct intelligence gathering? That is a bummer and could actually turn out to be a grave mistake in the long run.

It's a free country and we are entitled to our opinions on this matter. To me, if this type of surveillance helps prevent escalating terror attacks or protects american lives in any way, then I think I can put up with Google logging my Internet keystrokes. But if there is anyone that feels the same as me on this issue, we have to live with the fact that Snowden felt his personal moral views on the subject outweigh any potential problems his actions could cause for our country.

If he doesn't like how the government conducts business then, as a member of a republic, he can vote for politicians that share his views. Yeah, that is laughable. But that is the system we have in place. You can't just speak for all of us and abuse your network privileges by disclosing our nation's secrets. He signed an oath that he would not disclose classified information. He broke that oath and that is a crime for which he should be punished.

And I will reiterate that this is my opinion on the matter. I understand that it is not yours.

I think you viewing this as a downside assumes that Snowden has revealed things that foreign governments and terrorists had not already been acting as if we are doing. Mostly it has been confirmation of powers rumored or known from people like Mark Klien. That the government is bugging all electronic communication and working with US companies to build backdoors into technology is not earth-shattering.

However, I certainly disagree that I should be deprived of my rights just because others, such as yourself, are OK with it. I am glad Snowden asserted his moral views since the rest of us would be unable to even confirm these immoral and illegal activities occur without him, much less have the ability to vote accordingly. I care much more about upholding the ideas behind the Constitution than upholding an oath to a corrupt and lying government.

 

[Slapdash]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

If some IT guy has documents that destroys the country we have far bigger problems than Snowden.

Yeah, not sure how anything we have learned could destroy the country.

Think big picture. From what I understand, he didn't just tell the world that the US gov't uses surveillance systems to spy on its citizens. He disclosed blueprints and specific programs that the gov't uses and how they employ/manage them. About how they gather foreign intelligence. This type of info could be used to change communication strategies (say Al Qeida for instance) enemies employ and could set back intelligence gathering to a point where we might miss details of a plan to bring a nuclear bomb to NYC and Washington DC.

Will it happen? maybe not. Could it happen? maybe we'll find out at some point.

I just think if this causes the US to lose some type of intelligence advantage in foreign policy, then it sucks.

The intelligence agencies cannot even stop a bomb going off from someone they were warned about by Russia. The chances of the NSA mining through data to get actionable information independently are pretty low, particularly since they cannot produce credible evidence of doing it in the 13 years since the Patriot Act.

Also, its pretty clear from the OBL raid that Al-Queada is pretty savvy to the tools we have. No communications equipment in compound. No battery in cell-phone until his handlers had driven hours away. Essentially assuming we can and will intercept any communication. Snowden has changed nothing besides bringing these things public and holding the government accountable for its numerous lies.

 

[SacramentoBob]

More likely hero than not, but we don't know everything.

 

[Koya]

Not sure it's so cut and dry a choice, as others have mentioned.

 

[Jayrok]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

If some IT guy has documents that destroys the country we have far bigger problems than Snowden.

Yeah, not sure how anything we have learned could destroy the country.

Think big picture. From what I understand, he didn't just tell the world that the US gov't uses surveillance systems to spy on its citizens. He disclosed blueprints and specific programs that the gov't uses and how they employ/manage them. About how they gather foreign intelligence. This type of info could be used to change communication strategies (say Al Qeida for instance) enemies employ and could set back intelligence gathering to a point where we might miss details of a plan to bring a nuclear bomb to NYC and Washington DC.

Will it happen? maybe not. Could it happen? maybe we'll find out at some point.

I just think if this causes the US to lose some type of intelligence advantage in foreign policy, then it sucks.

The intelligence agencies cannot even stop a bomb going off from someone they were warned about by Russia. The chances of the NSA mining through data to get actionable information independently are pretty low, particularly since they cannot produce credible evidence of doing it in the 13 years since the Patriot Act

I don't think we can know exactly what has and hasn't been accomplished through our intelligence agencies. We can speculate. But if we knew exactly what was going on all the time, then it wouldn't be much of a spy game.

 

[SacramentoBob]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

If some IT guy has documents that destroys the country we have far bigger problems than Snowden.

Yeah, not sure how anything we have learned could destroy the country.

Think big picture. From what I understand, he didn't just tell the world that the US gov't uses surveillance systems to spy on its citizens. He disclosed blueprints and specific programs that the gov't uses and how they employ/manage them. About how they gather foreign intelligence. This type of info could be used to change communication strategies (say Al Qeida for instance) enemies employ and could set back intelligence gathering to a point where we might miss details of a plan to bring a nuclear bomb to NYC and Washington DC.

Will it happen? maybe not. Could it happen? maybe we'll find out at some point.

I just think if this causes the US to lose some type of intelligence advantage in foreign policy, then it sucks.

The intelligence agencies cannot even stop a bomb going off from someone they were warned about by Russia. The chances of the NSA mining through data to get actionable information independently are pretty low, particularly since they cannot produce credible evidence of doing it in the 13 years since the Patriot Act

I don't think we can know exactly what has and hasn't been accomplished through our intelligence agencies. We can speculate. But if we knew exactly what was going on all the time, then it wouldn't be much of a spy game.

How much has terrorism jumped in the time since Snowden released the documents?

 

[Jayrok]

Whistleblowing to US citizens about the NSA surveillance campaign inside our own country is one thing... sharing classified documents that discuss national spying activities and/or other covert operations on other nations is something completely different.

Not sure how you do one without the other given that these programs are global and built into the backbone of communications networks.

Can we weigh the pros vs cons on such an endeavor then? He chose to take it upon himself to perform his actions and that's that. Are there consequences? I'd say yes. The good: hey the government is monitoring social networks and has access to private phone calls and emails. Roger that, they shouldn't be doing that.

The bad: foreign governments, potential terrorist organizations, now know how the US carries out intelligence gathering operations. Can they use the info to counteract and shore up future communications? I'd say yes.

I don't presume to speak for others here... but for myself it seems the cons outweigh the pros. The government is watching.. ok, thanks for telling me this. It gives every foreign intelligence agency a head's up on how we conduct intelligence gathering? That is a bummer and could actually turn out to be a grave mistake in the long run.

It's a free country and we are entitled to our opinions on this matter. To me, if this type of surveillance helps prevent escalating terror attacks or protects american lives in any way, then I think I can put up with Google logging my Internet keystrokes. But if there is anyone that feels the same as me on this issue, we have to live with the fact that Snowden felt his personal moral views on the subject outweigh any potential problems his actions could cause for our country.

If he doesn't like how the government conducts business then, as a member of a republic, he can vote for politicians that share his views. Yeah, that is laughable. But that is the system we have in place. You can't just speak for all of us and abuse your network privileges by disclosing our nation's secrets. He signed an oath that he would not disclose classified information. He broke that oath and that is a crime for which he should be punished.

And I will reiterate that this is my opinion on the matter. I understand that it is not yours.

I think you viewing this as a downside assumes that Snowden has revealed things that foreign governments and terrorists had not already been acting as if we are doing. Mostly it has been confirmation of powers rumored or known from people like Mark Klien. That the government is bugging all electronic communication and working with US companies to build backdoors into technology is not earth-shattering.

However, I certainly disagree that I should be deprived of my rights just because others, such as yourself, are OK with it. I am glad Snowden asserted his moral views since the rest of us would be unable to even confirm these immoral and illegal activities occur without him, much less have the ability to vote accordingly. I care much more about upholding the ideas behind the Constitution than upholding an oath to a corrupt and lying government.

Fair enough. I'm not ok with people, including you and me both, being deprived of individual rights. I certainly didn't mean to imply that. But I think there is room for a balance when it comes to national security. Bottom line from my point of view is that it was not his call to make when he was intrusted with the security of those very documents. I'm worried about the possible fallout in foreign relations as a result of his actions. I hope I am wrong and it ends up being nothing more than a bunch of corrupt officials getting the boot.

 

[Fennis]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

If some IT guy has documents that destroys the country we have far bigger problems than Snowden.

Yeah, not sure how anything we have learned could destroy the country.

Think big picture. From what I understand, he didn't just tell the world that the US gov't uses surveillance systems to spy on its citizens. He disclosed blueprints and specific programs that the gov't uses and how they employ/manage them. About how they gather foreign intelligence. This type of info could be used to change communication strategies (say Al Qeida for instance) enemies employ and could set back intelligence gathering to a point where we might miss details of a plan to bring a nuclear bomb to NYC and Washington DC.

Will it happen? maybe not. Could it happen? maybe we'll find out at some point.

I just think if this causes the US to lose some type of intelligence advantage in foreign policy, then it sucks.

The intelligence agencies cannot even stop a bomb going off from someone they were warned about by Russia. The chances of the NSA mining through data to get actionable information independently are pretty low, particularly since they cannot produce credible evidence of doing it in the 13 years since the Patriot Act

I don't think we can know exactly what has and hasn't been accomplished through our intelligence agencies. We can speculate. But if we knew exactly what was going on all the time, then it wouldn't be much of a spy game.

How much has terrorism jumped in the time since Snowden released the documents?

you're still more likely to be killed by your own furniture than by terrorism.

 

[Jayrok]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

If some IT guy has documents that destroys the country we have far bigger problems than Snowden.

Yeah, not sure how anything we have learned could destroy the country.

Think big picture. From what I understand, he didn't just tell the world that the US gov't uses surveillance systems to spy on its citizens. He disclosed blueprints and specific programs that the gov't uses and how they employ/manage them. About how they gather foreign intelligence. This type of info could be used to change communication strategies (say Al Qeida for instance) enemies employ and could set back intelligence gathering to a point where we might miss details of a plan to bring a nuclear bomb to NYC and Washington DC.

Will it happen? maybe not. Could it happen? maybe we'll find out at some point.

I just think if this causes the US to lose some type of intelligence advantage in foreign policy, then it sucks.

The intelligence agencies cannot even stop a bomb going off from someone they were warned about by Russia. The chances of the NSA mining through data to get actionable information independently are pretty low, particularly since they cannot produce credible evidence of doing it in the 13 years since the Patriot Act

I don't think we can know exactly what has and hasn't been accomplished through our intelligence agencies. We can speculate. But if we knew exactly what was going on all the time, then it wouldn't be much of a spy game.

How much has terrorism jumped in the time since Snowden released the documents?

The secrets are being systematically shared and analyzed as we speak. It takes time to build the death star.

 

[greenroom]

Traitor and it's not even close. I understand what he did, but if we are beining honest and remove President Obama from this. People would be more against him. This stuff has been going on for decades. This is nothing new, and I am sorry it will not stop either.

Bottom line he took top secret information and shared it with other countries. He could of been an unnamed source on Fox News or CNN and still got his message out, without selling outs

this great country. If it was just about stopping the program!

 

[The Commish]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

Should he leak documents or hand them over that are that important, I'd agree. Do you believe anything he's exposed thus far is of the magnitude you suggest (that it could destroy the country) or are you saying he probably has other documents?

 

[lombardi]

How about coward?

I'm glad some of what he released is out in the open. I would feel better if it seemed like anyone with any real power in our government was doing something about it instead of just pumping out the daily rhetoric. But at least the average U.S. citizens now knows how far off the rails our government has gone, how healthy it is for us ALL to deeply mistrust them with our privacy and our Constitutional rights, and how dangerous the security for privacy swap is. The privacy "nuts" were vindicated I hope it wakes people up come election time. I also agree that there is no viable process for him to go through in order to blow the whistle on something this deep and harmful to so many in the higher echelons of government. I would fear for at least my livelihood and most likely my life.

Saying that, just because you want to expose some deep, dark secrets of the U.S. government that are harming your fellow citizens, you can't just indiscriminately grab every piece of Top Secret information you can get your hands on and then hold our government hostage with what you still have up your sleeve. He is basically bartering his own life and well being with the well being of our nation. That makes him a traitor. Whether we're happy with the ends, the means are not justified. We need security and the government does have to keep secrets, this is destructive to that entire process. Not to mention it has wreaked havoc with our foreign policy.

He had a third choice. He could have been a man and faced the music. The information could have been released through the U.S. media and gone through the media editing process. Even if he didn't go through the U.S. media and decided to send a drive off to Julian Assange, he still could have remained here and once the bomb dropped he could have stood up and faced the music. He could have walked into the NY times, the Fox Studios, or CNN and said "I'm here, I fear for my life, this is my story" and immediately gotten his story in front of the people. If Snowden stayed in the U.S. and went to prison here, he would have been a martyr. The international damage inflicted would have been minimized but the most important domestic revelations would have been released AND he would have garnered tons of support from privacy advocates on both the left and the right. He could have been a rallying point and hero to all pro-Constitution, privacy loving advocates. The fact that he is sitting under the protective shadow of Putin after passing through the protective embrace of China has killed any credibility he has. We have no way of knowing what he voluntarily or involuntarily has given away to our avowed enemies. We don't know what he still has yet to release, where it is, or whose hands have been on it.

While I agree he has helped our country in some ways I think he has harmed it as well. He had other options but he was too cowardly to take them.

 

[The Commish]

How about coward?

I'm glad some of what he released is out in the open. I would feel better if it seemed like anyone with any real power in our government was doing something about it instead of just pumping out the daily rhetoric. But at least the average U.S. citizens now knows how far off the rails our government has gone, how healthy it is for us ALL to deeply mistrust them with our privacy and our Constitutional rights, and how dangerous the security for privacy swap is. The privacy "nuts" were vindicated I hope it wakes people up come election time. I also agree that there is no viable process for him to go through in order to blow the whistle on something this deep and harmful to so many in the higher echelons of government. I would fear for at least my livelihood and most likely my life.

Saying that, just because you want to expose some deep, dark secrets of the U.S. government that are harming your fellow citizens, you can't just indiscriminately grab every piece of Top Secret information you can get your hands on and then hold our government hostage with what you still have up your sleeve. He is basically bartering his own life and well being with the well being of our nation. That makes him a traitor. Whether we're happy with the ends, the means are not justified. We need security and the government does have to keep secrets, this is destructive to that entire process. Not to mention it has wreaked havoc with our foreign policy.

He had a third choice. He could have been a man and faced the music. The information could have been released through the U.S. media and gone through the media editing process. Even if he didn't go through the U.S. media and decided to send a drive off to Julian Assange, he still could have remained here and once the bomb dropped he could have stood up and faced the music. He could have walked into the NY times, the Fox Studios, or CNN and said "I'm here, I fear for my life, this is my story" and immediately gotten his story in front of the people. If Snowden stayed in the U.S. and went to prison here, he would have been a martyr. The international damage inflicted would have been minimized but the most important domestic revelations would have been released AND he would have garnered tons of support from privacy advocates on both the left and the right. He could have been a rallying point and hero to all pro-Constitution, privacy loving advocates. The fact that he is sitting under the protective shadow of Putin after passing through the protective embrace of China has killed any credibility he has. We have no way of knowing what he voluntarily or involuntarily has given away to our avowed enemies. We don't know what he still has yet to release, where it is, or whose hands have been on it.

While I agree he has helped our country in some ways I think he has harmed it as well. He had other options but he was too cowardly to take them.

I'm pretty confident, had he stayed in the US, he'd never see the inside of a prison. Some sort of "accident" would have occurred and we certainly wouldn't have gotten an accurate take on the information he has from our media. Not sure fearing for your life is "cowardly" though.

 

[Fennis]

Traitor and it's not even close. I understand what he did, but if we are beining honest and remove President Obama from this. People would be more against him. This stuff has been going on for decades. This is nothing new, and I am sorry it will not stop either.

Bottom line he took top secret information and shared it with other countries. He could of been an unnamed source on Fox News or CNN and still got his message out, without selling outs

this great country. If it was just about stopping the program!

are you saying people support Snowden because Obama is in office?

 

[Joe T]

Hero

Surprised this vote is close.

 

[Freelove]

Hero

Surprised this vote is close.

Got to be careful how you vote. Never know who's listening.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Very similar to Daniel Ellsberg. Historical analogies are normally pretty flawed, but this one is very close. Almost all of the questions involving Snowden's heroism or treachery were brought up in the Ellsberg case for the exact same reasons.

Ive gone back and forth on this. I now believe that if Snowden is caught he should be prosecuted for revealing state secrets. That is against the law and it HAS to be against the law if our society is to survive. But that being said, it appears that his revelations will turn out to our ultimate benefit. Therefore it's hard for me to regard him as a traitor.

Sorry, if he's a "hero" he shouldn't be prosecuted.

I didn't exactly say he was a hero. And even so, heroes who break the law should be prosecuted. Personally I would pardon the guy, but only after he received a conviction.

Some similarities. Couple big differences:

Similarities:

• Obama secretly wiretapping reporters and citizens - James Rosen of Fox, Glenn Greenwald reporter at The Guardian, and Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, to name a few - something that Liddy and the rest of Nixon's crew were prosecuted for, but which Obama's team have not been.

Differences:

• Ellsberg stood trial and won, partly because of the obsessive nature of the Nixon administration. Lord only knows what would have come out of a Snowden trial about Obama administration. The Ellsberg trial was a big piece of the fall of Nixon.
• Ellsberg revealed information about the nature of the war and the fact that the government had been hiding details about how it was going. Snowden revealed a secret program that aside from its (un)constitutionality was going fine. Hard to see what Ellsberg's actions did to help the N Vietnamese at war with the US. However Ellsberg may have revealed may be much, much more. As Dr. Detroit points out, we really don't know. At a minimum, falling into the harms of the likes of Putin and the Chinese authoritarians makes a mockery about his claims about free speech, transparency and democracy. Ellsberg never ran off to any dictators.
• Greenwald and Miranda were searched and their private data seized by the UK at the request of the Obama administration. Nixon could have only dreamed of being so bold.

We really have no reason to assume Snowden gave them any information.

No, we don't, we also can't assume he didn't. But that wasn't my point. My point was talking about free speech and democracy on the one hand and then going to countries where people like him are executed, and actually where people who write on boards like this one here are jailed, really puts a sword through all his alleged idealistic motives.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I don't think someone taking actions to protect their life qualifies as a coward, per se. He left the country, he didn't hide behind a bunch of women and children to avoid being shot.

 

[StrikeS2k]

No, we don't, we also can't assume he didn't. But that wasn't my point. My point was talking about free speech and democracy on the one hand and then going to countries where people like him are executed, and actually where people who write on boards like this one here are jailed, really puts a sword through all his alleged idealistic motives.

I think the fact that he felt he had to take cover somewhere else is an indication of how much closer our government has become to those you describe than it was 50 years ago. And the fact that many of us understand why he did so gives his choice credibility. He's not some conspiracy nutjob. He has legitimate reasons to fear for his safety in the hands of the U.S. government.

For another previous post: I also don't think he has to sacrifice his freedom, as limited as it is, to become a martyr in order for to not be branded a traitor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

No, we don't, we also can't assume he didn't. But that wasn't my point. My point was talking about free speech and democracy on the one hand and then going to countries where people like him are executed, and actually where people who write on boards like this one here are jailed, really puts a sword through all his alleged idealistic motives.

I think the fact that he felt he had to take cover somewhere else is an indication of how much closer our government has become to those you describe than it was 50 years ago. And the fact that many of us understand why he did so gives his choice credibility. He's not some conspiracy nutjob. He has legitimate reasons to fear for his safety in the hands of the U.S. government.

For another previous post: I also don't think he has to sacrifice his freedom, as limited as it is, to become a martyr in order for to not be branded a traitor.

I will say I came across this:

Mr. Snowden asked Mr. Putin, “Does Russia intercept, store or analyze in any way the communications of millions of individuals?” And Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. agent and director of the Russian intelligence service, began his response by playing up both his and Mr. Snowden’s experience in espionage.

After seeming to admit that Russia did gather and store surveillance information, Mr. Putin declared that the intelligence services, “thank God, are under a strict control of the government and the society, and their activities are regulated by law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/world/europe/snowden-defends-query-to-putin-on-surveillance.html?_r=0

When I read that I laughed, it really could have come from Obama.

One main difference with our country is that the CIA & NSA are supposed to be non-political domestically.

So it makes me really curious how Obama supporters react when his main defense for Benghazi is an email memo from an NSA apparatchik who proceeds to couch the Benghazi attack for a political aide in terms of the president's political goals.

Oh but hey the NSA isn't "political", of course.

 

[greenroom]

Traitor and it's not even close. I understand what he did, but if we are beining honest and remove President Obama from this. People would be more against him. This stuff has been going on for decades. This is nothing new, and I am sorry it will not stop either.

Bottom line he took top secret information and shared it with other countries. He could of been an unnamed source on Fox News or CNN and still got his message out, without selling outs

this great country. If it was just about stopping the program!

are you saying people support Snowden because Obama is in office?

Yes, I am saying that because President Obama is in office that it is a bigger issue for them. If this happened under President Bush (which it was, but if it was discovered) that the people up in arms would not be so much. That said the Dems would be all upset like Republicans. But to me I would of loved to see the Tea Party's answer if a R was in office. I tend to think it would be mute!

 

[Fennis]

No, we don't, we also can't assume he didn't. But that wasn't my point. My point was talking about free speech and democracy on the one hand and then going to countries where people like him are executed, and actually where people who write on boards like this one here are jailed, really puts a sword through all his alleged idealistic motives.

I think the fact that he felt he had to take cover somewhere else is an indication of how much closer our government has become to those you describe than it was 50 years ago. And the fact that many of us understand why he did so gives his choice credibility. He's not some conspiracy nutjob. He has legitimate reasons to fear for his safety in the hands of the U.S. government.

For another previous post: I also don't think he has to sacrifice his freedom, as limited as it is, to become a martyr in order for to not be branded a traitor.

I will say I came across this:

Mr. Snowden asked Mr. Putin, “Does Russia intercept, store or analyze in any way the communications of millions of individuals?” And Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. agent and director of the Russian intelligence service, began his response by playing up both his and Mr. Snowden’s experience in espionage.

After seeming to admit that Russia did gather and store surveillance information, Mr. Putin declared that the intelligence services, “thank God, are under a strict control of the government and the society, and their activities are regulated by law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/world/europe/snowden-defends-query-to-putin-on-surveillance.html?_r=0

When I read that I laughed, it really could have come from Obama.

One main difference with our country is that the CIA & NSA are supposed to be non-political domestically.

So it makes me really curious how Obama supporters react when his main defense for Benghazi is an email memo from an NSA apparatchik who proceeds to couch the Benghazi attack for a political aide in terms of the president's political goals.

Oh but hey the NSA isn't "political", of course.

Snowden knows the real answer to that question and its why he asked it. He got Putin on the record.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Our government's actual statements on teh right to privacy:

The privacy rights of US persons in international communications are significantly diminished, if not completely eliminated, when those communications have been transmitted to or obtained from non-US persons located outside the United States.

What this means:

If the government is right, nothing in the Constitution bars the NSA from monitoring a phone call between a journalist in New York City and his source in London. For that matter, nothing bars the NSA from monitoring every call and email between Americans in the United States and their non-American friends, relatives, and colleagues overseas.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/14/nsa-eavesdropping-program-constitutional

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Traitor and it's not even close. I understand what he did, but if we are beining honest and remove President Obama from this. People would be more against him. This stuff has been going on for decades. This is nothing new, and I am sorry it will not stop either.

Bottom line he took top secret information and shared it with other countries. He could of been an unnamed source on Fox News or CNN and still got his message out, without selling outs

this great country. If it was just about stopping the program!

are you saying people support Snowden because Obama is in office?

Yes, I am saying that because President Obama is in office that it is a bigger issue for them. If this happened under President Bush (which it was, but if it was discovered) that the people up in arms would not be so much. That said the Dems would be all upset like Republicans. But to me I would of loved to see the Tea Party's answer if a R was in office. I tend to think it would be mute!

Actually there is some bipartisan opposition here:

In a letter to Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the senators, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ron Wyden of Oregon, maintained that the Justice Department was not being forthright about what they portrayed as factual misrepresentations to the Supreme Court in 2012. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a law permitting warrantless N.S.A. surveillance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/justice-dept-criticized-on-spying-statements.html

I don't think this is a party/ideology issue, or it shouldn't be.

 

[drummer]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

 

[drummer]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

They had a program that had architecture to protect the privacy of Americans that would still be able to sniff packets. Cheney and co. decided to scratch that. That took it too far. Are you a terrorist?

 

[drummer]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

I just did, and spelled it out for you.

Just having an honest conversation here.

Obama also wants to prosecute the hero, Snowden.

 

[Short Corner]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

After championing whistle blowers during his campaign, one was railroaded with false evidence and indicted under him.

:nomoresecrets:

:transparency:

 

[drummer]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

I just did, and spelled it out for you.

Just having an honest conversation here.

Obama also wants to prosecute the hero, Snowden.

That doesn't matter. The program wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama. You should know this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

I just did, and spelled it out for you.

Just having an honest conversation here.

Obama also wants to prosecute the hero, Snowden.

That doesn't matter. The program wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama. You should know this.

The FISA program was launched before Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney circumvented the FISA law. Obama crept through that window, took a chain saw and tore down the whole wall.

If Cheney is a traitor, then Obama must be one too, and maybe a little bit worse.

 

[drummer]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

I just did, and spelled it out for you.

Just having an honest conversation here.

Obama also wants to prosecute the hero, Snowden.

That doesn't matter. The program wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama. You should know this.

The FISA program was launched before Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney circumvented the FISA law. Obama crept through that window, took a chain saw and tore down the whole wall.

If Cheney is a traitor, then Obama must be one too, and maybe a little bit worse.

Again, it wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

I just did, and spelled it out for you.

Just having an honest conversation here.

Obama also wants to prosecute the hero, Snowden.

That doesn't matter. The program wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama. You should know this.

The FISA program was launched before Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney circumvented the FISA law. Obama crept through that window, took a chain saw and tore down the whole wall.

If Cheney is a traitor, then Obama must be one too, and maybe a little bit worse.

Again, it wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama.

Drummer, you and I agree on that. I am trying to understand why you think "x+y" is a crime for person A and why "x+v-z" is not a crime for Person B.

 

[drummer]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

I just did, and spelled it out for you.

Just having an honest conversation here.

Obama also wants to prosecute the hero, Snowden.

That doesn't matter. The program wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama. You should know this.

The FISA program was launched before Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney circumvented the FISA law. Obama crept through that window, took a chain saw and tore down the whole wall.

If Cheney is a traitor, then Obama must be one too, and maybe a little bit worse.

Again, it wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama.

Drummer, you and I agree on that. I am trying to understand why you think "x+y" is a crime for person A and why "x+v-z" is not a crime for Person B.

BECAUSE IT WASN'T LAUNCHED BY SNOWDEN OR OBAMA.

Jeebus, just go watch the 3 hour documentary on Frontline, or read Ars Technica's articles over all of it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

Ok. With regard to the NSA, what has Obama done differently than Cheney?

His administration lied to the USSC to get a ruling on standing, something even the bushies did not do. He's wiretapped Rosen of Fox, the Guardian reporters, and the head of Judicial Watch, and had Miranda's data seized by the UK, something Bush/Cheney never did but which Nixon and Liddy were caught at.

Anything else?

Concentrate on history. That would help you.

I just did, and spelled it out for you.

Just having an honest conversation here.

Obama also wants to prosecute the hero, Snowden.

That doesn't matter. The program wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama. You should know this.

The FISA program was launched before Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney circumvented the FISA law. Obama crept through that window, took a chain saw and tore down the whole wall.

If Cheney is a traitor, then Obama must be one too, and maybe a little bit worse.

Again, it wasn't launched by Snowden or Obama.

Drummer, you and I agree on that. I am trying to understand why you think "x+y" is a crime for person A and why "x+v-z" is not a crime for Person B.

BECAUSE IT WASN'T LAUNCHED BY SNOWDEN OR OBAMA.

Jeebus, just go watch the 3 hour documentary on Frontline, or read Ars Technica's articles over all of it.

I saw the Frontline doc.

Here's Snowden:

Q: When did you decide to leak the documents?

A: "You see things that may be disturbing. When you see everything you realise that some of these things are abusive. The awareness of wrong-doing builds up. There was not one morning when I woke up [and decided this is it]. It was a natural process.

"A lot of people in 2008 voted for Obama. I did not vote for him. I voted for a third party. But I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

Do you agree with Snowden's own comment there?

 

[drummer]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

Do you agree with Snowden's own comment there?

Yes I do, but Snowden leaked documents about THE PROGRAM that was again, set by Obama's predecessors. Let's focus on the actual ####### program, shall we?

 

[timschochet]

The NSA has, reportedly, committed some acts which I can't justify, and their officials have also lied to the public which they are supposed to be serving, which I also can't justify. These are the main reasons I stopped defending the NSA in this forum.

But I still can't get behind the assumption, implicit in so many comments here, that the entire NSA program is criminal, and therefore Cheney and Obama are criminal. To me that remains extreme and nonsensical.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-why

Do you agree with Snowden's own comment there?

Yes I do, but Snowden leaked documents about THE PROGRAM that was again, set by Obama's predecessors. Let's focus on the actual ####### program, shall we?

Obama has been in charge of "the actual ####### program" since January 2009. He has expanded it, lied about it to the press and courts, used it to secretly investigate and intimidate journalists.

It does not seem to you that besides creating the program he has done everything to continue and strengthen it?

 

[drummer]

Do you want an honest conversation or not? My guess is you don't.

 

[drummer]

The NSA has, reportedly, committed some acts which I can't justify, and their officials have also lied to the public which they are supposed to be serving, which I also can't justify. These are the main reasons I stopped defending the NSA in this forum.

But I still can't get behind the assumption, implicit in so many comments here, that the entire NSA program is criminal, and therefore Cheney and Obama are criminal. To me that remains extreme and nonsensical.

You know W signed off on all of this, don't you?

 

[timschochet]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

 

[drummer]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

 

[timschochet]

The NSA has, reportedly, committed some acts which I can't justify, and their officials have also lied to the public which they are supposed to be serving, which I also can't justify. These are the main reasons I stopped defending the NSA in this forum.

But I still can't get behind the assumption, implicit in so many comments here, that the entire NSA program is criminal, and therefore Cheney and Obama are criminal. To me that remains extreme and nonsensical.

You know W signed off on all of this, don't you?

Sure. And based on what I know, I would have too. So far as I'm aware, it's the execution of the program, and not it's conception, which has possibly gone astray.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do you want an honest conversation or not? My guess is you don't.

I thought that was wide open. I don't even have to concede the issue about Bush/Cheney because it's a fact.

Just as Snowden happened under Obama's watch, not Bush's.

 

[drummer]

Do you want an honest conversation or not? My guess is you don't.

I thought that was wide open. I don't even have to concede the issue about Bush/Cheney because it's a fact.

Just as Snowden happened under Obama's watch, not Bush's.

Oh ok, The Program is Obama's fault. Congrat's, MaxEmptyDome2000.