• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jill Stein: “Edward Snowden Should Be Brought Home With A Hero’s Welcome”

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a security clearance does not have the right to determine for himself what should go into the public domain, and what shouldn't. If you want to go and be a hero, fine. But don't expect the law to ignore you. His sentence is being served out in Russia. Some day when the Russians are tired of him, you'll see a little notice in page A30 in the N.Y. Times: "The Russian embassy informs us that Richard Snowden died suddenly due to a fall down the stairs of his ground floor apartment after being struck in the head by a meteorite."

The Russians don't like traitors much either.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Of course it CAN be, but how is it in Snowden's case? He gave it only to a small group of investigative journalists who then spent months sorting through what was safe and relevant to release. It's not like he did a mass dump of all the data to the public.



This is completely and objectively false. The documents exposed the details and scope of the NSA's mass surveillance program against Americans and has been ruled massively unconstitutional by multiple courts.

NSA mass phone surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden ruled illegal | US news | The Guardian

Would you like to explain why exposing unconstitutional and criminal behavior by the government is a crime in and of itself? Or are you just uninformed about the situation?
Click to expand...

It might have been alright to expose the NSA eavesdropping on US citizens in the USA- But that was not the point. It is fine to point a finger at criminal behavior. It is criminal to expose information on legitimate activities, whose exposure harms the country.

So yes. It is good to act to protect the Constitution. That is commendable. But no. It is criminal to do the rest of what he did. Considering the size of the harm, the punishment must be severe.
 
joG said:
It might have been alright to expose the NSA eavesdropping on US citizens in the USA- But that was not the point. It is fine to point a finger at criminal behavior. It is criminal to expose information on legitimate activities, whose exposure harms the country.

So yes. It is good to act to protect the Constitution. That is commendable. But no. It is criminal to do the rest of what he did. Considering the size of the harm, the punishment must be severe.
Click to expand...

By all means, point to the concrete harm that was caused by the meticulously verified and carefully selected reports of the investigative journalists who released the information. You're backpeddling. You've admitted that the government was running massively unconstitutional spy programs against its citizens, and that journalists who worked with him revealed that illegal activity. Now you're just saying he should be tried for treason anyway because there was also legal stuff included.

I don't think there's anything he could've done short of not exposing anything that would make you not want him in cuffs.

chuckiechan said:
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a security clearance does not have the right to determine for himself what should go into the public domain, and what shouldn't. If you want to go and be a hero, fine. But don't expect the law to ignore you. His sentence is being served out in Russia. Some day when the Russians are tired of him, you'll see a little notice in page A30 in the N.Y. Times: "The Russian embassy informs us that Richard Snowden died suddenly due to a fall down the stairs of his ground floor apartment after being struck in the head by a meteorite."


The Russians don't like traitors much either.
Click to expand...

Multiple federal courts have ruled the NSA's spy program against US citizens to have been massively unconstitutional. Can you explain why everyone in the government should just hold their tongues and play along no matter how unconstitutional or horrific the crime against the American people? Exposing crimes and upholding the constitution is not a crime.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Of course it CAN be, but how is it in Snowden's case? He gave it only to a small group of investigative journalists who then spent months sorting through what was safe and relevant to release. It's not like he did a mass dump of all the data to the public.
Click to expand...

Yes, he gave it to a small group of investigative journalists...which is the illegal part. Investigative journalists have no standing to determine if action is or isn't legal. They have no standing on determining what information can safely be released to the public or not. They have no ability to legally garner a greater scope of understanding as to what the information is, what other things it impacts, and what potential vulnerabilities it's exposure can be.

There are entire segments of individual agencies, then greater oversight agencies beyond that, not to mention congress itself, in which a person can blow the whistle to in a legal and legitimate matter. If, and ONLY if, an individual attempts to go through those legal means of whistleblowing and has been found to be stonewalled do I believe going to some outside authority such as journalists would be appropriate; outside of that it is it an irresponsible and arguably treasonous move spurred nearly singularly by owns own egocentric view of things and delusions of grandeur.

I do hope Mr. Snowden returns, so he can be brought before a trial and likely tossed in prison following the most plausible result.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, he gave it to a small group of investigative journalists...which is the illegal part. Investigative journalists have no standing to determine if action is or isn't legal. They have no standing on determining what information can safely be released to the public or not. They have no ability to legally garner a greater scope of understanding as to what the information is, what other things it impacts, and what potential vulnerabilities it's exposure can be.

There are entire segments of individual agencies, then greater oversight agencies beyond that, not to mention congress itself, in which a person can blow the whistle to in a legal and legitimate matter. If, and ONLY if, an individual attempts to go through those legal means of whistleblowing and has been found to be stonewalled do I believe going to some outside authority such as journalists would be appropriate; outside of that it is it an irresponsible and arguably treasonous move spurred nearly singularly by owns own egocentric view of things and delusions of grandeur.

I do hope Mr. Snowden returns, so he can be brought before a trial and likely tossed in prison following the most plausible result.
Click to expand...
Well, it's obvious that you think that the government can always police itself and should never be kept in check by the citizenry. In your world, covert and unconstitutional spying programs can simply be brought up to one's supervisor or IG and it will be addressed properly.

You live in a dream world. The government was committing massive crimes against its people. The people now know about it, courts have ruled it was in fact unconstitutional, and changes have been made. Life isn't black and white, it's nuanced, and the government doesn't police itself. As an American I thank Snowden for informing us that our rights were being violated and bringing about change.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Well, it's obvious that you think that the government can always police itself and should never be kept in check by the citizenry.
Click to expand...

I believe there should be the EFFORT to police itself; as evidenced by my post clearly indicating there was a time/place for going outside of the government with such information. But that doesn't fit your desire to paint everyone that dares to think that Snowden went about this wrong as some worshipper of the governments infallibility, so of course you ignored that part.

In your world, covert and unconstitutional spying programs can simply be brought up to one's supervisor or IG and it will be addressed properly.
Click to expand...

No, in my world one should ATTEMPT to go through the chain of command before irresponsibly and treasonously leaking the information to the press and/or enemy states.

You live in a dream world.
Click to expand...

No more so than the dystopian fantasy realm you've created to house your views on the matter.
 
e3cf1f13c5720fdc62f139851e230a1df20d309280a4c2dcd49d2c3039d291b6_1.jpg


If you're gonna advocate the arrest of Snowden for breaking the law, then you should not be a hypocrite and also advocate for the arrest of the Bush administration officials responsible for setting up the illegal PRISM mass-surveillance system in the first place (not naming any names, but I am sure there are Obama administration officials that could be found guilty as well)
 
Abbazorkzog said:
e3cf1f13c5720fdc62f139851e230a1df20d309280a4c2dcd49d2c3039d291b6_1.jpg
Click to expand...

That is just ****ing stupid. No one is saying truth is treason. Passing along classified information is a crime however.

If you're gonna advocate the arrest of Snowden for breaking the law, then you should not be a hypocrite and also advocate for the arrest of the Bush administration officials responsible for setting up the illegal PRISM mass-surveillance system in the first place (not naming any names, but I am sure there are Obama administration officials that could be found guilty as well)
Click to expand...


PRISM was based on law. It may very well be unconstitutional law, but we do not criminally prosecute congress or the president for passing unconstitutional laws. Facts, they are important. Image memes from facebook, they are not what you would call reliable.
 
Redress said:
That is just ****ing stupid. No one is saying truth is treason. Passing along classified information is a crime however.

PRISM was based on law. It may very well be unconstitutional law, but we do not criminally prosecute congress or the president for passing unconstitutional laws..
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:
Of course it CAN be, but how is it in Snowden's case? He gave it only to a small group of investigative journalists who then spent months sorting through what was safe and relevant to release. It's not like he did a mass dump of all the data to the public.



This is completely and objectively false. The documents exposed the details and scope of the NSA's mass surveillance program against Americans and has been ruled massively unconstitutional by multiple courts.

NSA mass phone surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden ruled illegal | US news | The Guardian

Would you like to explain why exposing unconstitutional and criminal behavior by the government is a crime in and of itself? Or are you just uninformed about the situation?
Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca already summed it up better than I ever could, and you just completely ignored it to come after me and try to make me look stupid (and the image wasn't even the point of my post in the first place).

The only person you've made out to look like an idiot is yourself, blindly appealing to authority with the weakest argument of them all: "he broke the law"...

...I guess morals are optional in your world.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
RabidAlpaca already summed it up better than I ever could, and you just completely ignored it to come after me and try to make me look stupid (and the image wasn't even the point of my post in the first place).

The only person you've made out to look like an idiot is yourself, blindly appealing to authority with the weakest argument of them all: "he broke the law"...

...I guess morals are optional in your world.
Click to expand...

That case is still ongoing. You should pay more attention.
 
Zyphlin said:
I believe there should be the EFFORT to police itself; as evidenced by my post clearly indicating there was a time/place for going outside of the government with such information. But that doesn't fit your desire to paint everyone that dares to think that Snowden went about this wrong as some worshipper of the governments infallibility, so of course you ignored that part.

No, in my world one should ATTEMPT to go through the chain of command before irresponsibly and treasonously leaking the information to the press and/or enemy states.

No more so than the dystopian fantasy realm you've created to house your views on the matter.
Click to expand...

Please, explain to me the government mechanism that would've shut down illegal spying. You seriously will sit there with a straight face and pretend to say that a lowly NSA worker taking the issue to his boss, who is also well aware of the program, was going to change anything at all?

Our government violated the rights of Americans and pissed all over the constitution, but the only outrage you can muster is to demand that the guy exposing the crimes against the constitution be locked in a cage. Jesus that is despicable.

Redress said:
That is just ****ing stupid. No one is saying truth is treason. Passing along classified information is a crime however.
PRISM was based on law. It may very well be unconstitutional law, but we do not criminally prosecute congress or the president for passing unconstitutional laws. Facts, they are important. Image memes from facebook, they are not what you would call reliable.
Click to expand...

I asked you before to detail the process that Snowden could've done to have this properly investigated and have the government police itself, yet you refused to answer. Can you explain how that would've worked out? The government violated the constitution, the crime was exposed, the public was outraged, and the courts ruled it was in fact illegal. The system worked.
 
Last edited:
People saying he should have gone through the proper channels are being naive. I served the better part of 20 years in the Intelligence Community and the "proper channels" for this type of complaint funnels right into the trash can.
 
BrewerBob said:
People saying he should have gone through the proper channels are being naive. I served the better part of 20 years in the Intelligence Community and the "proper channels" for this type of complaint funnels right into the trash can.
Click to expand...

"Oh, I guess I see what you mean there, Mr. Snowden, it IS unconstitutional. I'll just shut it down then!"

Why, oh why did Snowden have to take the traitor route when it all could've been this easy.
 
RabidAlpaca said:

"Oh, I guess I see what you mean there, Mr. Snowden, it IS unconstitutional. I'll just shut it down then!"

Why, oh why did Snowden have to take the traitor route when it all could've been this easy.
Click to expand...

:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
I like Snowden, and I like what he did.... and I think he should pay the piper for any illegal activities he engaged in, like anyone else should.

it's called the rule of law.
 
Thrilla said:
I like Snowden, and I like what he did.... and I think he should pay the piper for any illegal activities he engaged in, like anyone else should.

it's called the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Indeed, as should everyone else involved in the crimes he exposed.
 
joG said:
There would be a higher probability of punishment of the " ass wipes who ordered the other ass wipes to spy on Americans", if the activists used different language, thought about the matter and didn't argue that criminals are heroes.
Click to expand...

Using other language and not calling a hero a hero won't change the fact that the ass wipes who ordered the other ass wipes to violate the constitution will never ever be charged or found guilty.
 
Jack Hays said:
Snowden exposed nothing illegal.
Click to expand...

Illegal? Maybe not. Unlawful, definitely yes.
The government is infinitely more dangerous than Edward Snowden, and should be punished far more severely.
Or perhaps you do not understand the massive threat posed by a government that thinks it can spy on an entire planet and get away with it...

Oh, and to add...

Redress said:
That case is still ongoing. You should pay more attention.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
That case is still ongoing. You should pay more attention.
Click to expand...

It is still an appeal to authority and a non-argument since authority does not even exist and thus cannot be used as tangible evidence for or against something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom