Fuzz Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Is that wrong? Only if you like watching your kids getting groped for the illusion of security. 7 Reasons the TSA sucks from former head of security of Ben Gurion Airport 1
Learjetter Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 We're supposed to be a nation of laws. Snowden was wrong to disclose classified, and the NSA is wrong for violating the 4th amendment. The American people win if: Snowden does token time, and the NSA (& others) KIO. 2
Fuzz Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 We're supposed to be a nation of laws. Snowden was wrong to disclose classified, and the NSA is wrong for violating the 4th amendment. The American people win if: Snowden does token time, and the NSA (& others) KIO. I would say considering how broken the whistleblower system is only considering his initial actions, he should be granted immunity; as for his subsequent actions that is open to debate.
HeloDude Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Here's the problem: Though I stand by my earlier remarks that the Snowden release is good because it has people discussing the issue, allowing more people to see the truth and have less trust in their government, etc...I will concede to Serious that more than likely not much will be done to significantly change how the federal government does their business. Obama said he would have the most 'transparent' administration ever, so if this is what constitutes transparent, then I think we're in serious trouble. Many on the left (as shown via NYT) is applauding what Snowden did and therefore (I'm assuming) wants these practices to stop. Yet Obama and the Dems will not stop it, and the GOP, especially the establishment types (Rep King, Sen McCain types,) will not vote to stop it either--hence we get the same Patriot Act BS. The only somewhat legitimate candidate for one of the two party's nomination in 2016 that I could see reducing the NSA scope (at least on the domestic side) to a degree is Rand Paul, as I don't see Hillary or Christie changing much of how things are done in DC. And if I were a betting man, I would say that Christie will get the GOP nomination, and unless things go horribly for the economy and/or Obamacare, that Hillary will win in 2016. So my prognosis: Expect more of the same with only small changes. This is why I am voting more and more Libertarian...on the big issues the two parties are pretty close to being the same. 2
Homestar Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Snowden's mistake was going public. He should have planned a better exit strategy.
PapaJu Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Ends don't justify the means. I don't think going the IG route would've done much (which is why I can empathize a bit more with Bill Binney's situation a few years ago, even though I don't condone the leaking of classified material), but the means by which Snowden did this does matter here. How can we support someone as acting in the interest of privacy when he proceeds to seek protection in authoritarian Russia? The fact that his supporters overlook this "minor" detail adds to my belief that so-called privacy advocates have become ideologically predisposed against anything the USG does rather than acting as objective watchdogs against abuse. Snowden is no hero.
Fuzz Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Ends don't justify the means. I don't think going the IG route would've done much (which is why I can empathize a bit more with Bill Binney's situation a few years ago, even though I don't condone the leaking of classified material), but the means by which Snowden did this does matter here. How can we support someone as acting in the interest of privacy when he proceeds to seek protection in authoritarian Russia? The fact that his supporters overlook this "minor" detail adds to my belief that so-called privacy advocates have become ideologically predisposed against anything the USG does rather than acting as objective watchdogs against abuse. Snowden is no hero. So because his own country decided it wanted to keep breaking the law and therefore our allies wouldn't help him, just where was he supposed to go? I'm just trying to understand what exactly you would have liked him to do considering you admit the IG route wouldn't have worked.
HeloDude Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 So because his own country decided it wanted to keep breaking the law and therefore our allies wouldn't help him, just where was he supposed to go? I'm just trying to understand what exactly you would have liked him to do considering you admit the IG route wouldn't have worked. I wonder if he would have went to Sen Paul, Sen Wyden (a Dem, who believe it or not, cares about this as well), Rep Massie, or Rep Amash...if that would have turned out better with getting essentially the same result? Then again, when a few Sen's or Rep's in Congress start making these types of claims, the establishment of both parties start calling them 'whackos' and conspiracy theorists. Snowden releasing the information the way he did gave little doubt to what the NSA is actually doing. So I'm part of the camp that believes the ends did justify the means. And Snowden is paying a price for it...
Homestar Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Ends don't justify the means. I don't think going the IG route would've done much (which is why I can empathize a bit more with Bill Binney's situation a few years ago, even though I don't condone the leaking of classified material), but the means by which Snowden did this does matter here. How can we support someone as acting in the interest of privacy when he proceeds to seek protection in authoritarian Russia? The fact that his supporters overlook this "minor" detail adds to my belief that so-called privacy advocates have become ideologically predisposed against anything the USG does rather than acting as objective watchdogs against abuse. Snowden is no hero. He ended up in Russia by accident; I think his passport was revoked as he was changing planes to go to South America or something like that. He has stated multiple times that he'd rather be in a democratic country. He broke the law, certainly. Doesn't deserve to have a security clearance ever again. But sometimes laws need to be broken to serve a higher purpose. The guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers thought the same thing and never had to serve time for his leak. The scope of the NSA programs completely out of control and the American people deserved to know it. 6
PapaJu Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 So because his own country decided it wanted to keep breaking the law and therefore our allies wouldn't help him, just where was he supposed to go? I'm just trying to understand what exactly you would have liked him to do considering you admit the IG route wouldn't have worked. Well, he didn't seem to make an effort to reach out to some of the members of Congress that HeloDude mentioned that have made a stink about this issue (that was the route Ellsberg went with the Pentagon Papers). Or he could've restricted his leaks to the domestic stuff and not start spilling stuff about our foreign collection methods/targets (and perhaps remained anonymous or revealed himself while staying in the country). I find the "sincere guy worried about American civil liberties" argument hard to believe when he takes other documents and flees to another country. I don't think he's off to sell stuff off to the Chinese or Russians per se, in fact I'm having trouble determining what his motives actually are. He ended up in Russia by accident; I think his passport was revoked as he was changing planes to go to South America or something like that. He has stated multiple times that he'd rather be in a democratic country. He broke the law, certainly. Doesn't deserve to have a security clearance ever again. But sometimes laws need to be broken to serve a higher purpose. The guy who leaked the Pentagon Papers thought the same thing and never had to serve time for his leak. The scope of the NSA programs completely out of control and the American people deserved to know it. He was reportedly trying to go to Cuba, Venezuela, or Ecuador. Not exactly bastions of free media and government transparency, either. He did mention wanting to seek asylum in Iceland (after going to Hong Kong), but I have trouble buying that. Did he really think a democratic country with strong ties to the US was going to shelter him after he stole a bunch of classified documents and started giving them to the media? Either he's the most naive person on Earth or full of shit.
Fuzz Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Do you honestly believe any Congressman/Senator would have been able to do anything for him if he remained in this country? He would probably end up pigeon-holed in some federal prison till it blew over and we would probably know little to nothing, especially since our own government agencies can lie to or ignore congress. He was going to those countries because our allies wouldn't touch him, doesn't leave many places left to go.
PapaJu Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Do you honestly believe any Congressman/Senator would have been able to do anything for him if he remained in this country? He would probably end up pigeon-holed in some federal prison till it blew over and we would probably know little to nothing, especially since our own government agencies can lie to or ignore congress. He was going to those countries because our allies wouldn't touch him, doesn't leave many places left to go. Snowden's not the first NSA "whistleblower" in the past decade, but he's received a heck of a lot more attention than the others. Why? Because he ran off to Hong Kong and has created a, "What will he do next?" saga for himself. So while I can't disagree with your pessimism, that's also sort of the point of civil disobedience. If you're going to stand for something, be ready to face the consequences. Snowden would have had a better leg to stand on if he was willing to take the punishment; in my opinion, he's lost credibility by fleeing abroad and using classified documents unrelated to domestic spying as bargaining chips. 1 1
Homestar Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Either he's the most naive person on Earth or full of shit. Like I said, he didn't plan his exit very well. Personally, I think he should have required that the Guardian keep him name secret while he worked out his asylum requests. Apparently you have to actually be in Iceland to apply for asylum there. Snowden's not the first NSA "whistleblower" in the past decade, but he's received a heck of a lot more attention than the others. Why? Because he ran off to Hong Kong and has created a, "What will he do next?" saga for himself. So while I can't disagree with your pessimism, that's also sort of the point of civil disobedience. If you're going to stand for something, be ready to face the consequences. Snowden would have had a better leg to stand on if he was willing to take the punishment; in my opinion, he's lost credibility by fleeing abroad and using classified documents unrelated to domestic spying as bargaining chips. No way. Snowden has to look no further than Bradley "Chelsea" Manning to see what the government will do to someone that disrupts the agenda. Manning's leaks were small potatoes compared to what Snowden had. He was smart and had money. He should have been able to find someone who could make him disappear. I saw it once on Breaking Bad.
JS Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 So do you believe it's always criminal to take actions to support and defend The Constitution...even if the actions go against standing law? This is really a great question, and the main question at hand. I think he was right to do what he did - expose lawbreakers for secretly breaking the law, especially the MacDaddy framework of all of our laws, the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, last time I checked, and breaking the law on this scale kind of tears at the fabric of the foundation of Western society. But it was illegal for him to do what he did, and I think he should be punished according to the laws on the books, not only to reinforce that nobody and no organization is above the law, but because life is not fair. It is kind of like falling on your sword to prove a point - you still die if you fall on your sword, you don't get to prove your point and then ask for "death clemency" from the sword wound. It sucks that Snowden is a criminal for doing the right thing, but that is life. I kind of equate the sucking to when a Commander takes full responsibility, to include possibly getting fired, for something stupid that a subordinate did completely without the commander's knowledge. Life sucks and is not fair sometimes, but it had to be done.
Vertigo Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 This is really a great question, and the main question at hand. I think he was right to do what he did - expose lawbreakers for secretly breaking the law, especially the MacDaddy framework of all of our laws, the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, last time I checked, and breaking the law on this scale kind of tears at the fabric of the foundation of Western society. But it was illegal for him to do what he did, and I think he should be punished according to the laws on the books, not only to reinforce that nobody and no organization is above the law, but because life is not fair. It is kind of like falling on your sword to prove a point - you still die if you fall on your sword, you don't get to prove your point and then ask for "death clemency" from the sword wound. It sucks that Snowden is a criminal for doing the right thing, but that is life. I kind of equate the sucking to when a Commander takes full responsibility, to include possibly getting fired, for something stupid that a subordinate did completely without the commander's knowledge. Life sucks and is not fair sometimes, but it had to be done. Which will be the perfect incentive for no one to ever come forward again. Doing the right thing shouldn't require you to be a martyr. It shouldn't be illegal for you to expose illegal activity. 2
HeloDude Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 This is really a great question, and the main question at hand. Glad you think so--wish more and more people would agree. We have people on this anonymous board who won't even answer tough questions. I think he was right to do what he did - expose lawbreakers for secretly breaking the law, especially the MacDaddy framework of all of our laws, the Constitution. We are a nation of laws, last time I checked, and breaking the law on this scale kind of tears at the fabric of the foundation of Western society. Not sure what you mean by 'western society' (checked out France lately?), but I agree otherwise. But it was illegal for him to do what he did, and I think he should be punished according to the laws on the books, not only to reinforce that nobody and no organization is above the law, but because life is not fair. And this is where you lost me. Like Vertigo said, if there's no protection of challenging unConstitutional laws, then you further the threat and act of tyranny. Rosa Parks 'broke the law' by refusing to sit in the back of the bus--so you supported the punishing of her for doing so? Or do you just believe we should rely on the judiciary?...the same judiciary structure that supported the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent? Where do you personally draw the line? I'm not asking when/where 'you' will personally take a stand, but what is the line for you when it comes to others defying unConstitutional laws and taking a stand? It is kind of like falling on your sword to prove a point - you still die if you fall on your sword, you don't get to prove your point and then ask for "death clemency" from the sword wound. It sucks that Snowden is a criminal for doing the right thing, but that is life. So standing up to unConstitutional laws is equated to 'falling on your to prove a point'? You make it sound like there's no real and true benefit to taking a stand against a government not following their own law of the land. For the record, I'm not calling you, the guy down the street, myself, etc a bad person for not standing up for things such as Rosa Parks or Snowden did (and yes, I'm using their names together)...but when you outright support their punishment then you're nearly just as guilty. We're not all made the same, as we all have different lives, different levels of courage, but we should all have an idea of when we're all ready to stand up and take a stand, even if that means a potential negative consequence for doing so. 1 1
JS Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Not sure I agree with Rosa Parks and Snowden in the same sentence. Rosa was breaking the law to change something that was legal and Constitutional, Snowden was breaking the law to change something that was illegal and unConstitutional. But yes, Rosa should have been arrested and charged for the laws that she broke. There is a process to change the law and the Constitution, and I just feel that when people willy-nilly decide that they can break the law as a means of changing the law, then are we really still a nation of laws??? And that is what I meant by "Western Society," that we are a nation and society of laws, and I think that is a more fundamentally important value then sitting in the front of the bus or finding out what we already knew - that the government spies on us. Is society and the world better off because of what Rosa did? Of course, and she obviously chose, with the help of her friend MLK, a much more dramatic tactic to changing the current laws of the time versus writing her Congressman and waiting for those useless pieces of shit to act. So again, her falling on her sword was something that had to be done, essentially. And if we are to say that we are a nation of laws, then she should have been prosecuted, despite the good intentions and the ultimate good that came from her actions. Vertigo - I realize it will make things more difficult for future whistleblowers to come forward, but I think it is better than adopting a policy of "here are our laws that must be followed....unless you take it upon yourself to not follow them because you think something might be illegal or unconstitutional, then no laws apply to your actions." Edited January 7, 2014 by JS
Fuzz Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Vertigo - I realize it will make things more difficult for future whistleblowers to come forward, but I think it is better than adopting a policy of "here are our laws that must be followed....unless you take it upon yourself to not follow them because you think something might be illegal or unconstitutional, then no laws apply to your actions." Your ROEs say its ok to bomb mecial facility and your are order to bomb one. Your IG doesn't do anything when you report it and so you refuse becuase of LOAC. Congrats you just disobeyed a "lawful" order, and should be charged with deriliction of duty. Applied to peacetime the law (ROEs) says its ok to do something but you know its unconstitutional (LOAC) and therefore illegal, your whistleblower system is a failure. What do you do? It is our duty as citizens to expose illegal activity; you say "well then anyone can do it", and yes you are right but that's why we are supposed to have an politically independent judicial system, not a AG that bids the will of the President that appointed them. The system is to judge the persons actions and determine if the activity they exposed was truely illegal. By your reasoning you carve out a special exemption that forces people to become accomplices to illegal activity because it is "classified". Congrats you are now damned if you do and damned if you don't, becuase "we are a nation of laws" and you failed to report activity becuase you weren't allowed to so; you are a criminal either way. 1
HeloDude Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Hearing politicians talk about The Constitution, and actually mean it...gives some hope. The problem is that those politicians are in the minority (in both parties). Unfortunately it's not going to make a big difference in the short term and definitely not in the long term. People are more focused about raising the min wage (the min wage is about as anti-Liberty as you can get) and are less concerned with the growth and power of the federal government. We did it to ourselves.
HeloDude Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 This is short, informative (not that I fact checked it), and entertaining...
Sim Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 This is short, informative (not that I fact checked it), and entertaining... If only that was true. Date stamp = 1 April.
HeloDude Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 If only that was true. Date stamp = 1 April. Agreed. As for the day it came out, that is what drove my 'entertaining' comment. Though I would have still enjoyed it any day of the year.
ClearedHot Posted May 4, 2014 Posted May 4, 2014 The Founding Fathers are drinking bourbon and mocking us...how far we have fallen. 2 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now