Sorry, unlike you, I won't heroize someone who renders aid to countries antagonistic to the US.
You were in the military. How do you feel about this guy exposing the programs that we used to anticipate Taliban movement and planning efforts, thus making it probable that more of your brothers and sisters will die?
You were in the military what does the couple of lines in you oath of enlistment say?
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
I know this may seem old news yet more is being released and a recent conversation with a friend does not view him this way.
I followed this story lightly and would like to dig more and hear your thoughts.
Here is an article that sums up my perspective so far. What do you think?
Yes, Edward Snowden Is a Traitor | The Diplomat
I'm kind of in the middle on this, because nothing he did is really going to stop the Intelligence community from using technology to spy on whomever they choose.
He also said a couple things in his defense that are somewhat plausible.
He said he believed in the principle declared at Nuremberg in 1945: "Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring." Of course this was in reference to the soldiers involved in the Holocaust.
Unlike you I won't heronize those who wiped their fecal covered asses with the Constitution under the guise of security.
Actually it does. All our SIGINT methods and technology have been "burned". It's back to square one. In the meantime, Russia now has proven that it has the ability to achieve
strategic surprise against the United States, meaning that probably many other entities can as well. Because our collection is now useless.
What Snowden did wasn't like publishing the name of the one agent who kills an American citizen. What he did was the equivalent of publishing the actual name of every single American agent out there in order to also publish the name of one agent who kills an American citizen.
that's nice. I myself think that society would be better off and more moral without all those abortions. I am therefore morally correct in blowing up abortion clinics full of people, right?
OR, we can have Rule of Law in place of anarchy where every man feels the right to impose his beliefs over others.
To me the question is irrelevant. He is a criminal, and should be treated as such. He, based on what we know(and as always this is somewhat subject to revision if new facts come in), broke some very specific laws and should be prosecuted for such if we can ever get him in our custody. Whether you want to call him a traitor or not does not really matter, at least to me, but our laws do matter.
You don't know that, unless Mike Rogers gave you clearance.
You have a duty and obligation to follow your own conscience, if you don't then you're wrong.
Nonsense...there are TONS of ridiculous laws.
So, by your standard, 'blacks' that went against racist laws in history were nothing more then law breakers and criminals. Same with women and other minorities. The same with Jews in Nazi Germany and on and on.
Anyone tha blindly follows EVERY law - regardless of it's morality - is a spineless. government-brainwashed minion in my book. I only follow the laws that I feel are just (or are not worth the hassle for breaking them).
Snowden appears to have broken the laws of America for the greater good.
Sure, he broke the law...but he made the world a noticeably better place for it...even if most of the spineless minions of the world are too blind to see it.
He is a hero and I hope others in similar positions have the courage to do EXACTLY what he did...again and again.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that laws covering classified materials and espionage are ridiculous?
I've seen people devolve to that argument a couple of times in the Snowden threads.
Russia achieved strategic surprise in pushing into Crimea. This isn't exactly a secret.
Here’s just a partial list of Snowden’s leaks that have little or nothing to do with domestic surveillance of Americans:
The classified portions of the U.S. intelligence budget, detailing how much we spend and where on efforts to spy on terror groups and foreign states, doesn’t deal with Americans’ privacy. This leak revealed the intelligence community’s self-assessment in 50 major areas of counterterrorism, and that “blank spots include questions about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear components when they are being transported, the capabilities of China’s next-generation fighter aircraft, and how Russia’s government leaders are likely to respond to ‘potentially destabilizing events in Moscow, such as large protests and terrorist attacks.’” The Pakistani, Chinese, and Russian intelligence agencies surely appreciate the status report.
Our cyber-warfare capabilities and targets don’t deal with Americans’ privacy. The revelation that the U.S. launched 231 cyber-attacks against “top-priority targets, which former officials say includes adversaries such as Iran, Russia, China and North Korea and activities such as nuclear proliferation” in 2011 has nothing to do with Americans’ privacy.
The extent and methods of our spying on China have nothing to do with Americans’ privacy.
British surveillance of South African and Turkish diplomats has nothing to do with Americans’ privacy.
The NSA’s successful interceptions of communications of Russian President Dimitri Medvedev has nothing to do with Americans’ privacy. This is not a scandal; it is literally the NSA’s job, and now the Russians have a better idea of what messages were intercepted and when.
Revealing NSA intercepts and CIA stations in Latin America — again, nothing to do with U.S. citizens.
Revealing a U.K. secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East — nothing to do with U.S. citizens.
The extent and range of NSA communications monitoring in India. . . .
The fact that the United States has “ramped up its surveillance of Pakistan’s nuclear arms,” has “previously undisclosed concerns about biological and chemical sites there,” and details of “efforts to assess the loyalties of counterterrorism sources recruited by the CIA” . . .
The U.S.’s spying on Al-Jazeera’s internal communication system. . . .
What we know about al-Qaeda efforts to hack our drones. . . .
The NSA’s ability to intercept the e-mail of al-Qaeda operative Hassan Ghul. . . .
The NSA’s ability to read the e-mail of the Mexican president. . . .
The U.S.’s electronic intercepts of communications to French consulates and embassies in New York and Washington. . . .
The existence of NSA surveillance teams in 80 U.S. embassies around the globe . . .
NSA’s spying on OPEC . . .
NSA’s collecting data on the porn habits of Muslim extremist leaders in order to discredit them . . .
. . . none of these stories have much of a tie to Americans’ privacy....
If so, then you also have a duty and and obligation to withstand the consequences of your actions when you choose the path of civil disobedience. You can't write the Letter until you are willing to go to the Birmingham Jail. For Snowden to offer up the defense that he felt morally obligated to engage in treason does not make him any less a traitor, and that he wasn't willing to actually go through with the hard, icky part indicates he's a bit more about himself.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that laws covering classified materials and espionage are ridiculous?
Are you honestly trying to suggest that laws covering classified materials and espionage are ridiculous?
The US military and Intelligence agencies are one big pain in the ass to other countries. We so overly dominate everyone it's obnoxious. They didn't have the right to tap our allies leaders cells.
All you're doing is re-pasting a bunch of stuff you don't even personally know is true.
We have satellites that the CIA can spot the eye color of a person when positioned
And I'm sure they use surveillance techniques that Snowden has no idea about.
If the soldiers at the death camps in Nazi Germany had refused to gas those Jewish captives, would they have been considered national traitors? Yes, probably, but they would've been heroes to the world. It's not a great comparison but it is about following human conscience.
Yes, until I SEE what these materials are and that they are clearly worthy of classification, then I am not for one minute believing the government.
As far as I am concerned, I believe NOTHING the government says...nothing. If they say something is secret, it means nothing to me until they prove it.
The only pass I will give them is on military secrets of a technological nature (or military secrets in general during wartime).
Now do you believe a 'black' in U.S. history who broke a racist law that was later deemed by the Supreme Court to be unlawful was just a criminal?
Yes or no?
Are you honestly trying to suggest that laws covering classified materials and espionage which are unconstitutional, are fine with you?
I don't think the espionage act is unconstitutional. Maybe you could show me that SCOTUS ruling...
YES THEY DO. THAT IS FULLY LEGAL AND FURTHERMORE IT"S TYPICAL. Collection on other nations is the IC's friggin job. It's why they exist in the first place.
oh. And I don't know if you missed this, but China, Russia, and Iran AREN"T OUR ALLIES.
It's all linked - feel free to peruse.
That's fascinating to hear. What is the NIIRs resolution of that? Since you know so much about it....
Well not from the NSA because he was an administrator meaning that that little bastard could download pretty much anything that wasn't gapped.
You are right, it's not a great comparison. It is in fact, a Godwin violation. But to flip it, if someone during WWII had decided to leak the Normandy invasion plans to the Germans so that it could be beaten at the beaches that would have been treason, too, regardless of whether or not they thought that Germany's ideals of racial purity were morally superior to our own.
If the government shows you the secrets, they no longer are secret.
Why do you keep trying to suggest I said things I didn't? Hint: I never used the word "just".
Yes, until I SEE what these materials are and that they are clearly worthy of classification, then I am not for one minute believing the government.
As far as I am concerned, I believe NOTHING the government says...nothing. If they say something is secret, it means nothing to me until they prove it.
The only pass I will give them is on military secrets of a technological nature (or military secrets in general during wartime).
the issue snowden stated was the government was engaged in unconstitutional activity.
can the federal government bind a federal employee with federal law, if the law is an unconstitutional law?
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?