Dapper Andy
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 913
- Reaction score
- 310
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Both gripes have to do with injustices done by the US government, no? For Manning it was the information he had on the killing of those journalists in Iraq, I believe.
So for his own safety he should give himself up to the state?
He's former military, CIA, and worked under the NSA. When he released that information, he put a huge bullseye on the back of his head.
I didn't say that he "made no other promises". I didn't say that he "kept them all." I said that he told people "it's going to be tough and we won't get all our objectives" and then got elected contrary to your assertion that one cannot say those things and also get elected. Get it yet?
I would rather take my chances with reserving my own freedom than to just give up and allow the state to do whatever they want with me. The same applies to whatever crime I commit, really. He has already pretty much admitted he will get caught, but like a rational person he isn't willing to just allow the state to do whatever they want with him.
He gave that up when he revealed who he was, what he did, and where he's at. Turning himself in is his only chance.
The US government is the most powerful force on the planet and no matter what he was screwed. Telling the world his side of the story before the state decides his fate and stops him from being heard was a good choice, imho. Now the people will have both sides of the story and get to decide with a least bit more information than the government is willing to share.
This story will fade into obscurity, and Snowden will never be heard from again. He ****ed up, and regardless of what he believes was the right thing to do, he has effectively ended his own life. Right now, he has the opportunity to do it the hard way, or the easy way. Either way, he's at the mercy of the CIA's decision on how to resolve the issue he created.
The question is: Can you forgive the "crime" based on what the crime has potentially exposed?
What, you mean 310 million American citizens to more effective targeting efforts by hostile networks?
:roll: Yes, that is what happened.
It is. When you destroy the ability to collect against enemy networks, you hinder our ability to impede their actions, making their targeting efforts more effective.
Tell me something - whose duty is it to "rat out" our own governments illegal activities?
Why are you ok with your government spying on you?
“The Fourth Amendment is clear; we should be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, and all warrants must have probable cause. Today the government operates largely in secret, while seeking to know everything about our private lives – without probable cause and without a warrant.
“The government does not need to know more about what we are doing. We need to know more about what the government is doing.
“We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk. They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.”
Ron Paul: We need to know more about what the government is doing - Campaign for Liberty
No. Spying on American citizens is unconstitutional and wrong.
Why are you ok with your government spying on you?
It is. When you destroy the ability to collect against enemy networks, you hinder our ability to impede their actions, making their targeting efforts more effective.
1. Because I individually agreed to allow them to do so
2. More broadly as a citizen, because I'm not sure that it is. The CIA isn't listening in to everyone's calls. If you say "Blackbriar" plus "Jason Bourne", that isn't going to translate into a real-time analyst marking you down for assassination (though if you say code words used by terrorists in the patterns that suggest you are planning an attack then your call may get flagged to get actually spied upon).
I wouldn't say I'm comfortable with these programs. The vulnerability to abuse seems immense. But neither do I find the broad reaction to be particularly well-informed or based on accurate depiction of the programs themselves.
You gave permission to the NSA to spy on your international cellphone calls?
Actually no, there is no constitutional provision protecting Americans from being spied upon. The government can watch you 24/7/365 and not run afoul of the Constitution. Again, why we need a privacy amendment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?