• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance

As a separate issue, yes. This is not a new thought for me. It has long bothered me that we farm out too many things for our national security and defense that I feel we should have direct control over. In the case of intelligence, government. In the case of military weapon systems, 100% designed and manufactured in our own country.
 

If Snowden felt that the Government committed crime, then he should have stayed in the US to make his case. Whistle-blowing needs checks and balances. If you're going to break your oath and reveal secret information, then you'd better be prepared to face the consequences. We don't get to pick and choose what's secret and what's not.

As I said earlier, I don't see the need for the programs because I feel that the threat of terrorism is vastly overblown. But I don't get to approve of someone outing a secret just because it advances my political views.

I'd think that the phrase "weak willed American People" would refer to Americans who gave the government carte blanche to prosecute the war on terror. IMO it's a better phrase than saying "the majority of the American people" which was true in 2002, 2004, 2006, and marginally so in 2008; but no longer true today. That said, the real benefit of anonymous posting is that your words have to stand on their own. Because anyone can claim to be anything, claims mean next to nothing. You aren't allowed the false sense of security you get from reputation or degrees. I could say I'm from anywhere I wanted, but it doesn't change what I say or how I say it. And considering the question kind of feels like a pejorative, I'll politely decline to answer.
 
Last edited:
Legally speaking, he isn't entitled to any whistleblower protections. He did not report any activity that has been declared illegal, and he didn't go up the chain of command. He is almost certainly going to be arrested, deported and tried for espionage.

Ethically, he may have a case. Legally, he's screwed.
 
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” -Benjamin Franklin
I concur, this is excessively simplistic. There will always be some tradeoffs between these two needs.
 
Nothing more than opinion. This is an entirely subjective comment which says nothing of the legitimacy of Snowden's actions.

We don't get to pick and choose what's secret and what's not.
Apparently, Snowden, the NSA and all the other people involved in this did get to pick and choose so this comment is erroneous.

As I said earlier, I don't see the need for the programs because I feel that the threat of terrorism is vastly overblown. But I don't get to approve of someone outing a secret just because it advances my political views.
Who is approving of someone outing a secret just because it advances their political views? You are the first person I've seen say such a thing.

So again, blame everybody but the actual people who implemented the programs. How logical.

And considering the question kind of feels like a pejorative, I'll politely decline to answer.
In other words, "No, I am not American." Funny that you consider the question pejorative after the derogatory manner in which you referred to some Americans. Double standards, I suppose.
 


Mark this day PD....What you say here is spot on...The truth of the matter is that we have a history of sacrificing our liberties for supposed security, from everything including local government policy, to the Federal Government...There is a tipping point. For instance take a look at the TSA, and how we fly now....We allow them to x-ray, and photograph us nude, and submit to strip searches based on random, PC criteria....just to take public transportation like air travel. Now although it is a necessary evil today, some level of personal liberty for the greater safety of the public at large will no doubt always be sacrificed, but you are correct in asking the question as to how much.
 
if not the leaker/whistleblower, who?

congress?


Lawmakers rebut Obama's data defense - Reid J. Epstein - POLITICO.com


Dem. Senator disputes Obama's claims that Congress was briefed

The only lawmakers who knew about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.

U.S. is spying on Web servers - Philly.com

the judiciary?

US government invokes special privilege to stop scrutiny of data mining | World news | guardian.co.uk

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones

remember, nsa alexander in testimony before the house 14 times assured hank johnson that no data collection was going on

Horrible timing: National Security Agency lists 'Digital Network Exploitation Analyst' internship opening as controversy swirls over digital snooping scandal | Mail Online

in the senate odni clapper said the same to ron wyden

DNI James Clapper says that the NSA does not collect data on millions of Americans - YouTube

"any type of data collection at all?"

"not wittingly..."
 

That's a fair point. I was referring to the law, not solely the court. Congress has oversight over the FISA court. It would make sense that Congress would take that responsibility seriously in the post-9/11 world where cases before the court have increased markedly. If not, then the process needs to be reviewed and fixed.
 

Actually, that's not in other words. I'll stand by my statement that the real people to blame are weak willed Americans who label themselves brave but vote out of fear. And that doesn't become more or less true because of where you think I'm from. Give me a valid reason why you should care where I'm from, and I'll answer it. (not that it means anything) Otherwise no thank you.

We sold our freedom because we were terrified of terrorists. Now we're terrified that the government may use the powers we gave them against us. Fear fear fear..... Land of the free and home of the brave? Those two concepts are paired together for good reason, you can't have the former without the latter.
 
hero of the nam era left:


Daniel Ellsberg thanks Edward Snowden - Hadas Gold - POLITICO.com
 
I concur, this is excessively simplistic. There will always be some tradeoffs between these two needs.

I think your interpretation of the quote is a bit too simplistic. Franklin's meaning is that any minor level of security you gain from any freedom surrendered is undeserved. In the case of the NSA dragnet the system takes away everyone's right to privacy in order to save us each from a terrorist threat that, on an individual basis, is very small.

History as shown Franklin to be wise since most dictatorships are built on an incremental abdication of freedom in order to combat some perceived enemy.
 
10 things the journolisters think you should know:


10 things to know about Edward Snowden - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com

the eef, by the way, the electronic frontier foundation, is the organization that mother jones (david corn, mr 47%) reported friday is suing the doj to get holder to make public the 86 page report written by the fisa judge which finds nsa data collection to be "unreasonable under the 4th amendment"

in kafka-esque fashion (corn's characterization), the doj is stymying eef's foia by referring eef to the fisa court, even tho fisa in a 2007 precedent sent the aclu to the doj under comparable circumstances

corn says the doj was given the 86 page report ruling in defense of the 4th in april and is now holding it back cuz it's classified (not anymore)

someone needs to clean up that garage...

(mojo above)
 
Last edited:
the journolisters' hall of infamy:

10 famous/infamous whistleblowers - Photos - 1 of 10 - POLITICO.com

1. mark felt---the guy who moved the potted plant so bob woodward could work watergate

2. ellsburg---jane fonda fav

3. linda tripp---ugly

4. serpico---nypd graft, early 70's, starring al pacino

5. silkwood---OK nukes, meryl streep nominated for an oscar (as was cher who played streep's girlfriend)

6. mark whitacre/matt damon---price fixing between doa and adm (archer daniels midland)

7. jeffrey wigand/russell crowe---exposed addictive levels of nicotine on 60 minutes, 1996

8. coleen rowley---fbi agent who talked about intel failures before 9-11

9. sherman watkins---enron

10. manning
 
carney, the hardest working man in washington


Obama News: A Living Diary of the Obama Presidency - POLITICO44 - POLITICO.com

did obama read it in the paper (again)?
 
separation of powers?

Sen. Mark Kirk pokes at Eric Holder: Did NSA spy on Congress? | Sun-Times

 
I don't find much trust in Congress either, but Snowden acted with little difference between him, and Bradley Manning in my mind at the moment.

Manning was trying to hurt the US, Snowden was trying to expose the NSA overreach. The Patriot Act and other related laws passed under Bush were suppose to be limited to narrow surveillance of known terrorists overseas trying to make contact inside the US. This new surveillance far exceeds that by light years. They created a monster in Washington and it's gone nuts. It appears the NSA thinks it's God.
 

FISA is corrupted, I agree.

But more importantly the legislation upon which it is founded is specious and illegitimate, especially the most recent enhancements to the basic statute.

Cops enforcing bad law will never look good, and judges enforcing bad law are in the same boat.
 

Exactly. Just heard Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) on the radio, who was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and authored much of the original Patriot Act, clearly state that the current policies far over-stepped what the Patriot Act authorized. This began when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 (and JS lost his Chairmanship) and laws they passed in 2007.

Bottom line is that there is no way in Hell that the PA authorized this wholesale harvest of data. And Congrats Democrats, after all the Bush bashing for wanting to harvest just the traffic to and from suspected terrorists overseas, (which was authorized), your folks went and just trashed everybody's rights !! All done in secret !! Whoooo - Hoooo !!!
 

Excellent deflection job...................
 
The constitution clearly requires warrants for searches or they are illegal (with courts also allowing probable cause searches). There is no way that the blanket searches of phone company and ISP records are legal.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…