- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 25,566
- Reaction score
- 36,346
- Location
- American Refugee in Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
My vote is that he should win a couple of decades of residence in his own private room, with all of his meals and living expenses paid for by the federal government.
What he made public might deserve to be public, but he as a person, someone who signed his name to a document in which he promised that he would keep what he saw secret and then betrayed his employer and the oath he took/signed.
How dare he inform you that your government was spying on you! The balls! Lock him in the dungeon! :roll:
Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional - CNN.com
I guess to some people like yourself, the constitution is just a piece of paper that politicians can wipe their ass with.
So you think a confidentiality agreement overrules the constitution? When I was a soldier I swore to uphold and defend the constitution, and to protect the American people. His oath was essentially the same. Nowhere does it say **** about defending the honor of the politicians who made unconstitutional decisions.
If they were murdering kids in dark rooms, would you still think he belongs in jail for reporting what happened, or is there a situation where you feel he would be justified?
Peace is subjective?Where's this 'peace', because of his actions?
Paul
YES. Better than that HELL YES. Although the Nobel prize is a joke, he's a billion times more deserving than POS Obama.
He's a true American hero.
Remember that I don't believe in Rights, Dave. So far as I'm concerned the Government should have the right to do whatever checking on anyone.... You, Me, anyone else they deem necessary to ensure the security of this nation.
1. He can take the Nobel if he likes. Certainly he is no worse than Arafat.
2. He's also no hero. He's a traitorous, whiny little coward. Those so excited about his disclosures on the NSA metadata program somehow forget that the little bastard also released a crap-ton of data on our collection against foreign terrorist networks, as well as against more traditional targets, such as other nation intentions. There are a few million people in Ukraine right now who sure wish that the U.S. and Europe were able to act in concert on foreign security and provide a counter to Russia implanting a dictatorship but oh - wait - Snowden lives in Russia and is Putin's tool now, and he screwed that up.
Sure, give him the prize. Then put him on trial, and if found guilty, have him shot.
1. He can take the Nobel if he likes. Certainly he is no worse than Arafat.
2. He's also no hero. He's a traitorous, whiny little coward. Those so excited about his disclosures on the NSA metadata program somehow forget that the little bastard also released a crap-ton of data on our collection against foreign terrorist networks, as well as against more traditional targets, such as other nation intentions. There are a few million people in Ukraine right now who sure wish that the U.S. and Europe were able to act in concert on foreign security and provide a counter to Russia implanting a dictatorship but oh - wait - Snowden lives in Russia and is Putin's tool now, and he screwed that up.
Sure, give him the prize. Then put him on trial, and if found guilty, have him shot.
I don't really have any interest in starting a debate with you on this subject because you've made it quite clear in the past that you will trade any amount of liberty for any amount of security. I think that's completely a coward's position, but you've heard me say that before.
Obama concedes NSA bulk collection of phone data may be unnecessary | World news | theguardian.com
Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional - CNN.com
Oh, and you're completely pulling the Russia bit out of your ass. We're totally powerless to stop Russia controlling Ukraine, all because of Snowden's leaks. How ridiculous. :lamo
I'll just leave you with a quote from the man in your avatar:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Ben Franklin
Essentially, you feel that any existing limits to a government's reach/power can be effectively and legitimately negated if all you do is get employees to sign a piece of paper stating that they will play along.What he made public might deserve to be public, but he as a person, someone who signed his name to a document in which he promised that he would keep what he saw secret and then betrayed his employer and the oath he took/signed.
Should Edward Snowden win the Nobel Peace Prize?
(he has been nominated, apparently)
Essentially, you feel that any existing limits to a government's reach/power can be effectively and legitimately negated if all you do is get employees to sign a piece of paper stating that they will play along.
How convenient.
I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.0
It is not the piece of paper but the trust behind it and the honor of the person who signs it (combined with the penalties that can be expected if you break that solemn oath).
I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.
They might be violating the constitution but that is not the issue IMHO, that is something the supreme court has to decide. There are laws that make the behavior of the politicians and the government possibly completelely/largely legal. Betraying your oath as a employee of the government is illegal according to the law. I may not want him to be punished too hard (haven't made up my mind about that) but he certainly does not deserve the nobel peace prize.
I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.
If it's top secret, how is it supposed to even get to the supreme court? Whether it's unconstitutional or not is the issue, and without knowing about it we can't discuss that issue. When you swear an oath you swear an oath to the American people and the constitution. That's what he swore to, and that's what he's chosen to put first.
I called PeterKing on it before, and he seems to be of the opinion that no matter what horrible things your government is doing, even if they're killing kids in dark rooms, you HAVE to keep your mouth shut.
It is not the piece of paper but the trust behind it and the honor of the person who signs it (combined with the penalties that can be expected if you break that solemn oath).
I presume you accept the leaders of government violating their solemn oaths to uphold the Constitution since you deftly avoided that part.
They might be violating the constitution but that is not the issue IMHO, that is something the supreme court has to decide. There are laws that make the behavior of the politicians and the government possibly completelely [sic]/largely legal. Betraying your oath as a employee of the government is illegal according to the law. I may not want him to be punished too hard (haven't made up my mind about that) but he certainly does not deserve the nobel peace prize.
There are laws that make the behavior of the politicians and the government possibly completelely [sic]/largely legal.
Possibly. What the hell is the Nobel Peace Prize awarded for, anyways?
Oh, those people are being dealt with, but in a proper investigative process that cannot be commented on due to security and privacy concerns.So why is there so much attention being given to trying to extradite Mr. Snowden, and bring criminal charges against him, while no comparable attention to efforts to prosecute the criminals whose illegal activities he exposed?
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?