-
Comment -
I believe it was James Madison who said that every citizen has the duty to report any violation of the constitution of whether by a citizen or the government itself.
James Clapper lied to Congress and the nation and there were no prosecutions. Every crime that endangers the US Govt is a national security issue and must be censored as a national security issue because any loss of credibility is a danger to the nation.
There is no more right to trial by jury any longer. Americans will surrender every right they have if they get their cage rattled a little.
I don't consider him a hero or a traitor. I think he did the right thing. It was the only way to make the information available to the public with a lawless government where elites like David Petraeus and Clapper walk for crimes that would land anyone else in prison.
The US Government has never been able to say how Snowden endangered anyone. They just tell you to take their word for it. We can't give you any information because if you knew what we were doing the country would collapse.Comment -
He said it because he falsely projected his unwillingness to change his mind onto the people who disagree with him...doesn't mean he's correct
Projecting your own failures onto others is certainly prevalent in political discourse today, but pales in comparison next to the refusal to change your mind in general.Comment -
Doesn't mean he's incorrect either. Why should he change his mind and not you?He said it because he falsely projected his unwillingness to change his mind onto the people who disagree with him...doesn't mean he's correct
Projecting your own failures onto others is certainly prevalent in political discourse today, but pales in comparison next to the refusal to change your mind in general.
RK and me rarely agree on anything but on this we do.
let's face it, I suspect those of us that like to jump into politics or subjects like this are almost never going to change anyone's mind. We aren't talking about how good this pitcher does against right handed batters. There are very few novice posters talking politics. Best you can hope for is some understanding as to why you think a certain way. If you really expect anyone to change their mind on anything, you will be waiting a long time my friend.
After reading many opinions on both sides of the Snowden thing, I happen to agree with him that he's a traitor and belongs in jail. Many people feel the same way.Comment -
His statement doesn't mean he's incorrect; the fact that I (and presumably others) are prepared to change our minds does, should someone present new facts or a convincing argument. Unfortunately, I don't think either one of you has, as you haven't been able to show the harm he's done. The most harm you can claim so far is that spies have to be pulled back so the people they're spying on don't try to hurt them (no mention made of whether or not we should be spying on them in the first place)...do you honestly claim that this "damage" (political fallout at most) is more concerning than the massively overreaching, unconstitutional surveillance he exposed? Can you honestly say he shouldn't have revealed the governments violation of everyone's rights simply because it inadvertently made some logistical messes for less egregious espionage activity?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people drawing varying conclusions from a set of facts...but if people, when their opinions are challenged with facts, just say "Nah, I'm done thinking/debating this cause I won't change my mind", they're exhibiting a mentality that is one of the root causes of the rotting of republics and democracies worldwide. If you have counterpoints to the above, please share em,or at least address the points...not doing so and continuing to insist you're right only paints you as the person unwilling to change your mind.
On an unrelated note, would also be interested to hear your reason for wanting Trump for president if that's not a joke
Comment -
you talk a lot but don't say much.His statement doesn't mean he's incorrect; the fact that I (and presumably others) are prepared to change our minds does, should someone present new facts or a convincing argument. Unfortunately, I don't think either one of you has, as you haven't been able to show the harm he's done. The most harm you can claim so far is that spies have to be pulled back so the people they're spying on don't try to hurt them (no mention made of whether or not we should be spying on them in the first place)...do you honestly claim that this "damage" (political fallout at most) is more concerning than the massively overreaching, unconstitutional surveillance he exposed? Can you honestly say he shouldn't have revealed the governments violation of everyone's rights simply because it inadvertently made some logistical messes for less egregious espionage activity?
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people drawing varying conclusions from a set of facts...but if people, when their opinions are challenged with facts, just say "Nah, I'm done thinking/debating this cause I won't change my mind", they're exhibiting a mentality that is one of the root causes of the rotting of republics and democracies worldwide. If you have counterpoints to the above, please share em,or at least address the points...not doing so and continuing to insist you're right only paints you as the person unwilling to change your mind.
On an unrelated note, would also be interested to hear your reason for wanting Trump for president if that's not a joke
We are correct and you are wrong. It's that simple. Ya I know you think the exact opposite. So be it. We agree to disagree. yaddy yaddy yadda. The difference is there's no self righteous bs coming from my side.
As far you so eloquently put it .... (no mention made of whether or not we should be spying on them in the first place), well hey man, kid yourself all you want. That is never going the change on this planet. Never. It's been happening since humans have been alive. I could also believe that the world is filled with chocolate rivers and candy cane trees and all the US needs to do is NOTHING and suddenly the whole world will hold hands and sing together and evil will immediately be a thing of the past. But I am not naive.
I do believe in honor. I do believe if your word means nothing ... you are nothing. You aren't a man. Snowden was put in a position which he was paid well for. He was trusted with classified information along with thousands of others. Yet, he chose to break his word, his contract, walk away from his family, his GF, his home and run and hide in Russia or anyone else that would take his lying traitor ass. He isn't a man. He's a coward. A liar. A sellout to his country.
You have no clue what damage he did by releasing info about other countries. None. But you shrug it off and pretend.
I will say it once more, if he only told people that the NSA was spying on Americans I wouldn't have an issue with him.Comment -
I try to say as much as I can as clear as I can, but it isn't always heard and understood
When your opinions are challenged and your reply is "Nah, I'm just right", that's 1) not helpful and 2) a good indicator of the opposite.
I understand the needs, real and perceived, for espionage. However, your entire argument is that 1) Snowden broke his word, and 2) the damage he did was worse than the government abuse he revealed. Nobody disagrees with you on 1); what we're saying is that breaking your word isn't automatically unethical and disqualifying everything you do and say, and that you have yet to provide any proof of 2)...recalling some spies is not going to be the end of the country or the world, and certainly shouldn't be seen as a bigger atrocity than the massive government overreach and civil rights violations. Do you disagree?
Do you disagree that it can be noble to break your word to do good or to stop evil? If you promise you'll keep a secret and I tell you I'm going to go murder some babies, are you a coward/liar/non-man/sellout if you tell the authorities, or are you behaving as an ethical human being should?
I believe I have some clue on the "damage" he might have done, but I clearly don't know everything. Do you know more than you've shared? If so, please share it so we can try to understand why you consider it so damaging...if not, then the question is why do you think it's such a big deal? Do you really think that forcing the recall of some spies is as damaging to US-world relations as the fact that we were violating the rights of their citizens and ours for no particular reason other than we could?
If he had come out and said "hey guys, the NSA is spying on people!", it's unlikely he would have had much impact...these kind of allegations need documentation and proof. Even with it, people are quick to dismiss it for ideological reasons, as has been done in this thread...what makes you think he would have had any impact on the issue without it?Comment -
I try to say as much as I can as clear as I can, but it isn't always heard and understood
When your opinions are challenged and your reply is "Nah, I'm just right", that's 1) not helpful and 2) a good indicator of the opposite.
I understand the needs, real and perceived, for espionage. However, your entire argument is that 1) Snowden broke his word, and 2) the damage he did was worse than the government abuse he revealed. Nobody disagrees with you on 1); what we're saying is that breaking your word isn't automatically unethical and disqualifying everything you do and say, and that you have yet to provide any proof of 2)...recalling some spies is not going to be the end of the country or the world, and certainly shouldn't be seen as a bigger atrocity than the massive government overreach and civil rights violations. Do you disagree?
Do you disagree that it can be noble to break your word to do good or to stop evil? If you promise you'll keep a secret and I tell you I'm going to go murder some babies, are you a coward/liar/non-man/sellout if you tell the authorities, or are you behaving as an ethical human being should?
I believe I have some clue on the "damage" he might have done, but I clearly don't know everything. Do you know more than you've shared? If so, please share it so we can try to understand why you consider it so damaging...if not, then the question is why do you think it's such a big deal? Do you really think that forcing the recall of some spies is as damaging to US-world relations as the fact that we were violating the rights of their citizens and ours for no particular reason other than we could?
If he had come out and said "hey guys, the NSA is spying on people!", it's unlikely he would have had much impact...these kind of allegations need documentation and proof. Even with it, people are quick to dismiss it for ideological reasons, as has been done in this thread...what makes you think he would have had any impact on the issue without it?
I appreciate your respectful debate skills even though we obviously disagree and will just continue to butt heads on this topic. So I will take the unanimous victory and call it a night
Cheers
Comment -
Used to be smarter, haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in far too long
Hah...if you change your mind please drop back in and continue; it's hard to change anyone's mind when people stop debating!
Comment -
We all need to continue debating for domestic violence sake.Comment -
According to this article, the government is involved in a smear campaign against Snowden to shift public perception against him. They want the public to believe he is responsible for death and has "blood on his hands". I guess the government releases "reports" that the press prints, with all kind of bs.
Comment -
The irony of course, is that Dwight hates government. Doesn't trust government. Wants to cut government.
Yet will blindly support unsourced statements. Why exactly did those government sources need to be anonymous anyway? They couldn't get someone to state on the record that spies had been compromised or that Snowden had "blood on his hands"?
Tom Harper wrote the ridiculous cover story in the Sunday Times in which anonymous government sources claimed that the Russians and Chinese had somehow gained the power to decrypt copies of the files Edward Snowden took from the NSA, depite the fact that these files were never in Russia and despite the fact that the UK government claims that when criminals use crypto on their communications, the state is powerless to decrypt them.Comment -
wrong again. Intellectual dishonestly is your theme.
I hate incompetent government. So should everyone.
I hate Wasteful government. Everyone should.
I want less government. Everyone should.
I want responsible government to the people that elected them. Everyone should.
Responsible government will have the money to help those that need it but won't if they hand it out to those that just want it. You purposely spin it around like a typical liberal wacko.
I think the spending under Bush was disgraceful. Obama's also. You will only focus on the Republican failures only and always spin things to suite your obvious political bias. You will get on your knees and suck government's rooster because you are told to. I won't.Comment -
Snowden revealed programs designed to spy on terrorists, but that spy on everyone.
He revealed programs that have unlimited budgets with no oversight.
His revelations have opened a discussion on whether or not we need over a million people spying domestically.
His revelations revealed the illegality and over-reach of many of these programs.
In theory - you should be a big supporter right?
Something tells me if he even had one piece of info that would lead to Obama having to resign or go to jail, there would be Molson being hoisted in CR as you celebrated this new found "patriot".Comment -
And I have said several times before that I would have no problem with Snowden if that's all he did. Except it wasn't. How hard is that to understand?
Snowden or anyone else that works for his country, no matter the country, that releases classified information about what his country was doing to other countries other than his own country is a traitor. You might disagree but that is what I think. Many other do as well.Comment -
I didn't read this whole thread and likely won't, but it seems to me the Ed Snowden story smells of all three...hero, traitor, and criminal.
1. He's a hero to many, there is no denying that.
2. The moment he intentionally entered another country with his laptop, with intent to share that information, he becomes a spy. Since he's a US citizen, that espionage makes him a traitor.
3. Point 2 makes him a criminal but in light of the thread I would say there is no doubt in my mind that Ed is in criminal violation of some sort contract he signed. Regardless, we know he is guilty of breaking a few laws, making him a criminal.
Comment -
Partly a criminal, but less of one than the ones who continue violating US citizensComment -
well saidI didn't read this whole thread and likely won't, but it seems to me the Ed Snowden story smells of all three...hero, traitor, and criminal.
1. He's a hero to many, there is no denying that.
2. The moment he intentionally entered another country with his laptop, with intent to share that information, he becomes a spy. Since he's a US citizen, that espionage makes him a traitor.
3. Point 2 makes him a criminal but in light of the thread I would say there is no doubt in my mind that Ed is in criminal violation of some sort contract he signed. Regardless, we know he is guilty of breaking a few laws, making him a criminal.
Comment -
Comment -
Has anyone noticed the increase in govt hacks since Snowden ran like a little bitch?
Gee, those hacks haven't killed anyone, but why kill when you can eventually slowly destroy their lives?
If you don't think Snowden isn't some how behind those cyber attacks, think again. IT professionals have access
to passwords, lot's of them.
What a coincidence we have been hacked from Russia (where Snowden defected) and China (a friend of Russia).Comment -
US violates its own citizens rights, violates national sovereignty of countries and assassinates dozens of women and children for every confirmed terrorist kill...but that's just acceptable collateral damage in the war onI didn't read this whole thread and likely won't, but it seems to me the Ed Snowden story smells of all three...hero, traitor, and criminal.
1. He's a hero to many, there is no denying that.
2. The moment he intentionally entered another country with his laptop, with intent to share that information, he becomes a spy. Since he's a US citizen, that espionage makes him a traitor.
3. Point 2 makes him a criminal but in light of the thread I would say there is no doubt in my mind that Ed is in criminal violation of some sort contract he signed. Regardless, we know he is guilty of breaking a few laws, making him a criminal.
terrorblowback. Exposing this despicable behavior though...that's automatically treason because a guy broke his non-disclosure agreement and because the same government that lied to us about the former is telling us it's bad? Same logic would have people go free on war crimes charges; "Sorry, my contract said I had to commit genocide if ordered, I wouldn't wanna be a traitor!"
I've noticed I'm also slightly older since Snowden brought these things to light...he musty have given the Chinese and Russians access to top-secret government chemicals!!
Comment -
No, it is not acceptable, it's just the rules of the game. All countries that can, abide by them. No big shock there. It certainly isn't new, that doesn't make it ok, it's just reality. Been like that all through history.
Yes, it is. It is treason.
Exactly, this argument has been successfully used for both war crime defense as well as other defenses. Ed will likely have trouble with this defense, in this case.
Are you trying to make a point?
On second thought, don't bother answering.
Comment -
i'm just amazed that one of the supposed Jason Bourne types we allegedly have working for the gov't wasn't able to snuff the bastard........
starting to think these guys don't exist (other than that one dude in the middle east, think he might have been in iraq, who started cappin' people in the street.... he was a certified bad ass)Comment -
No, it is not acceptable, it's just the rules of the game. All countries that can, abide by them. No big shock there. It certainly isn't new, that doesn't make it ok, it's just reality. Been like that all through history.
Yes, it is. It is treason.
Exactly, this argument has been successfully used for both war crime defense as well as other defenses. Ed will likely have trouble with this defense, in this case.
Are you trying to make a point?
On second thought, don't bother answering.
I can only assume that the "rules of the game" you're referring to are international accords agreed upon by countries including the US and the US constitution. The exposed US activities are violations of those agreed-upon "rules"...yet you seem to think that the sanctioned murder of innocents and the violations of civil rights by officials sworn to uphold them isn't as bad as a guy breaking an NDA to alert us to it.
You can call it "treason" all you want, but we happen to have defined it as making war on the US or aiding the enemy (defined as such in the constitution, which you don't seem overly concerned about). Can you give even one example of aid to an enemy that was given by Snowden, from a source that isn't the government Snowden exposed and which has been trying to make itself look better by assassinating his character? Any examples of significant harm to the US caused by his actions? For that matter, I don't think you can make a case for Russia and China as "enemies", unless you consider everyone who isn't us an enemy
Are you claiming that it's more ethical for a person to keep their word and allow atrocities to occur, rather than break their word in an effort to stop them?. Morality isn't black and white, but has orders of importance; would you condemn a guy who prevents a violent assault if he jaywalked to do so? If a guy foils a bank robbery, should that count for nothing if he didn't file his income taxes on time?
Your position just doesn't hold up to any kind of reason
Lil off topic, but death by radiation is anything but mysterious and the opposite of subtle.Comment
...It wasn't the length of the thread that leads me to not read it...