- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 25,357
- Reaction score
- 11,557
- Location
- Post-Trump America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
If they expose abuse of power, then yes, they do grant him the authority.He's a criminal, and therefore closer to the first than the second. Whatever his intentions or convictions may be, they do not grant him the authority to play lawyer and release the contents of classified, legally sanctioned activities pertaining to homeland security.
Snowden had the legal ability to take the proper channels in critiquing and seeking to end these practices, not the right to release classified information to media outlets.If they expose abuse of power, then yes, they do grant him the authority.
Snowden had the legal ability to take the proper channels in critiquing and seeking to end these practices, not the right to release classified information to media outlets.
Don't know the details of the hearing you're referring to. If true, that fact still obviously doesn't absolve Snowden from his own legal responsibilities.That's a load of crap evidenced by the fact that when questioned through the proper channels our NSA leaders "lied outright" to our Congressmen Wyden and Udall. They were testifying to a Senate committee. That would be "lied to us, you and I" because Wyden and Udall were representing you and I in proper legal channels. Prosecute Clapper and McCullough.
Interesting. So you propose that he should have brought up the issues he saw with the surveillance program to the very institution that created, implemented and continuously approved the programs in all three branches of government - to the same institution whose members have made it very clear that they see no problem with the programs? And this, in your mind, would have done what?Snowden had the legal ability to take the proper channels in critiquing and seeking to end these practices, not the right to release classified information to media outlets.
Snowden, according to legal authorities, was free to report what he felt was criminal activity or abuses of authority to Congressional authorities or the Inspector General in this case.Interesting. So you propose that he should have brought up the issues he saw with the surveillance program to the very institution that created, implemented and continuously approved the programs in all three branches of government - to the same institution whose members have made it very clear that they see no problem with the programs?
And this, in your mind, would have done what?
Which means nothing as a response to what I said. Responding to a situation where Institution X is abusing its power in secret by saying "you should report the abuse of power to Institution X in secret" is nonsensical. It is an empty, irrational argument.Snowden, according to legal authorities, was free to report what he felt was criminal activity or abuses of authority to Congressional authorities or the Inspector General in this case.
If what's being revealed is an abuse of power, then yes, it does justify the illegal route. The law is not the supreme good.No clue, but the mere potential or even overwhelming likelihood of not getting the desired result from legal recourse does not justify taking the illegal route.
Sure it does. You asked what I proposed (in a rhetorical sense), I responded with what appears to be the legal avenues for complaints of this nature.Which means nothing as a response to what I said.
Responding to a situation where Institution X is abusing its power in secret by saying "you should report the abuse of power to Institution X in secret" is nonsensical. It is an empty, irrational argument.
If what's being revealed is an abuse of power, then yes, it does justify the illegal route. The law is not the supreme good.
No, you are purposely avoiding the point. It is illogical to argue that someone who wants to shed light on a (perceived) abuse of power rely on the very institution that is committing the (perceived) abuse of power to honestly address that (perceived) abuse in secret, particularly when that institution has made it clear that they see no problem with their behavior.Sure it does. You asked what I proposed (in a rhetorical sense), I responded with what appears to be the legal avenues for complaints of this nature.
This abuse of power you speak of is a purely subjective conclusion. In any case, I can't agree with the notion that publicly incriminating oneself by releasing national security information is a more rational route than the legally prescribed alternative.
Perhaps on a personal or ideological level. Merely claiming abuse doesn't absolve him legally however.
The Inspector General? Congressional committees? Snowden had avenues available that were not directly involved or obviously biased towards the practices he took issue with. Regardless, as stated earlier, the likelihood of not getting the desired result justifies his actions on a personal, not a legal level.No, you are purposely avoiding the point. It is illogical to argue that someone who wants to shed light on a (perceived) abuse of power rely on the very institution that is committing the (perceived) abuse of power to honestly address that (perceived) abuse in secret, particularly when that institution has made it clear that they see no problem with their behavior.
The Inspector General? Congressional committees? Snowden had avenues available that were not directly involved or obviously biased towards the practices he took issue with. Regardless, as stated earlier, the likelihood of not getting the desired result justifies his actions on a personal, not a legal level.
The Inspector General of what? The NSA? The same organization that implemented the program? No.The Inspector General? Congressional committees? Snowden had avenues available that were not directly involved or obviously biased towards the practices he took issue with.
It may absolve him on a legal level - that remains to be seen. On ethical grounds, it certainly does.Regardless, as stated earlier, the likelihood of not getting the desired result justifies his actions on a personal, not a legal level.
Don't know the details of the hearing you're referring to. If true, that fact still obviously doesn't absolve Snowden from his own legal responsibilities.
Who believes that Snowden is a traitor or a hero or maybe you think he's a plant for something larger?
Many people believe that he is a hero, but those loyal to and working in government sense that Snowden is a traitor for leaking secrets...
I believe he is a traitor who used his position for personal gain and 15 mins of fame.
Abuses that have not yet been demonstrated. In any case, the law he's by all accounts guilty of violating is an offense regardless of whether or not the abuse actually occurred.Abuses of the law destroy the moral authority of the law, and with it any need to obey it.
Which means nothing as a response to what I said. Responding to a situation where Institution X is abusing its power in secret by saying "you should report the abuse of power to Institution X in secret" is nonsensical. It is an empty, irrational argument.
Abuses that have not yet been demonstrated. In any case, the law he's by all accounts guilty of violating is an offense regardless of whether or not the abuse actually occurred.
I find it hard to believe that if demonstrable abuse were in fact occurring, he would have failed to find a sympathetic ear (especially given the political opportunity to impugn the current administration and/or the tendency of the left to reject portions of the Patriot Act). All in all a useless debate though, as it changes not a bit the framework set in place. Again, the likelihood of failure through legal means does not justify running roughshod over the system itself.The Inspector General of what? The NSA? The same organization that implemented the program? No.The same Congressional committees that were already aware of the program and continued to approve it? No. Again, you are proposing that someone trust the institution he is accusing of abusing their power to seriously evaluate their behavior in private.
Then, you casually say that he had "avenues" to do about this in another way without seeming to know anything about those "other ways".
That is absurd and lazy.
It may absolve him on a legal level - that remains to be seen. On ethical grounds, it certainly does.
I'll assume you're speaking of the provision about leaking documents related to national security, as Snowden was not in any way obligated to work for the NSA or participate in the activities in question.The law that he is accountable is to one Americans feel increasingly unable to respect. Like its something that didn't originate with us and doesn't reflect who we are as a people.
Once people don't respect the law as a protective force for their community, the government that administers it either has to make them mortally afraid for their lives and that of their families or reform itself.
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?