Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations

[theDoctorisIn]

Does anyone doubt that Romney had a similar program specifically designed for his election campaign - although probably not as sophisticated?

Famously, Romney's program crashed on E-Day, fucking up their GOTV operation.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations | World news | guardian.co.uk

It's probable that the government is going to go after this hero, harshly, when, in fact, they should be the ones arrested.

He is not a hero.

He is not a villain necessarily, either.

But let's not get all carried away.

The laws exist for a reason and he intentionally took it upon himself to decide what worth the law was in regard to the secret nature of this information.

It was not his call to make. Nobody elected him.

Yes, the laws exist for a reason, and the government broke them. It doesn't matter that he wasn't elected. He exposed the crimes of people who were elected. He tried to complain to the people above him, as he explains in the interview, but they wouldn't listen. So he decided that we should all decide for ourselves, and I'm glad he made that decision and admire his bravery in doing so. You can say it wasn't his decision to make, but it wasn't the U.S. government's decision to spy on every American in such a fashion, and that is what we should be worried about. The government is not going to hold itself accountable, and we can't if we don't know what they're doing.

It MIGHT be that the government broke the laws.

If so, the ones responsible need to get attended to. Let's say -- ya know -- prosecuted.

But there is another law that says, simply, Thou shalt not reveal classified information. That's the law SNOWDEN broke.

He had no right to do so no matter how noble he thought he was in doing so.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He is not a hero.

He is not a villain necessarily, either.

But let's not get all carried away.

The laws exist for a reason and he intentionally took it upon himself to decide what worth the law was in regard to the secret nature of this information.

It was not his call to make. Nobody elected him.

Yes, the laws exist for a reason, and the government broke them. It doesn't matter that he wasn't elected. He exposed the crimes of people who were elected. He tried to complain to the people above him, as he explains in the interview, but they wouldn't listen. So he decided that we should all decide for ourselves, and I'm glad he made that decision and admire his bravery in doing so. You can say it wasn't his decision to make, but it wasn't the U.S. government's decision to spy on every American in such a fashion, and that is what we should be worried about. The government is not going to hold itself accountable, and we can't if we don't know what they're doing.

It MIGHT be that the government broke the laws.

If so, the ones responsible need to get attended to. Let's say -- ya know -- prosecuted.

But there is another law that says, simply, Thou shalt not reveal classified information. That's the law SNOWDEN broke.

He had no right to do so no matter how noble he thought he was in doing so.

The ones responsible will not be attended to. For starters, the government maintains a monopoly on justice, thus it's not going to bring itself to justice. Secondly, nobody has standing to bring a case against the government because the program is top secret and nobody can prove that they've had their information stolen.

That's how the government operates. So tell me how they're supposed to be held accountable in an environment where they can criminalize exposing their crimes. Furthermore, explain how they're supposed to be held accountable when, absent Snowden, nobody even knows this is happening in the first place.

When the government makes it illegal to expose its criminal acts then you'll have to forgive me for not objecting when those laws are broken.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does anyone doubt that Romney had a similar program specifically designed for his election campaign - although probably not as sophisticated?

Almost everyone on the planet doubts that.

In fact, before you asked this question, I would have said everyone did.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Does anyone doubt that Romney had a similar program specifically designed for his election campaign - although probably not as sophisticated?

Almost everyone on the planet doubts that.

In fact, before you asked this question, I would have said everyone did.

Romney's campaign used GOP Vault, or something like that.

I don't really know much about it because voter databases are generally jealously partisan, Republican campaigns and non-profits use entirely different software which I have no experience with.

 

[Lakhota]

Will the government seek the death penalty (or something lesser) for Snowden's treason?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Will the government seek the death penalty (or something lesser) for Snowden's treason?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Obviously Snowden has committed nothing even resembling treason.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Will the government seek the death penalty (or something lesser) for Snowden's treason?

Doubtful.

Also damn doubtful that any jury would give it to them.

But, again, the basic precept here is that it was not his choice to make.

And if one nevertheless takes it upon oneself to violate a law of that nature (i.e., keep state secrets secret) then one should probably anticipate the prospect of getting prosecuted for the intentionally illegal act.

Go figure.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Bush pushed this into high gear with bi partisan support. It appears to have grown under Obama with bi partisan support. It will probably keep growing whomever is elected next with bi partisan support. It is only a matter of time before it is taken too far by either party.

It hasn't been taken too far already?

I would agree it has been taken too far. What I should have said is that it is only a matter of time before it's use is taken too far. This is all touted as anti terrorism and I can see where it can be very useful with that. The problem is that it is just a matter of time before this becomes useful against ordinary citizens. That hasn't happened yet.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Will the government seek the death penalty (or something lesser) for Snowden's treason?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Obviously Snowden has committed nothing even resembling treason.

It isn't "obvious" and it might not even be true. IT could be reasonably argued that he rendered aid to them because now they know not to rely on the 4th Amendment to conceal their plotting and planning. This makes it more difficult (perhaps) to catch them.

And it certainly could be argued (reasonably) that this has provided them with some comfort. It is more comfortable to be exposed to lowered risk.

Forget "treason" though. The simple felonies involved in revealing classified information should suffice for criminal justice purposes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Will the government seek the death penalty (or something lesser) for Snowden's treason?

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Obviously Snowden has committed nothing even resembling treason.

It isn't "obvious" and it might not even be true. IT could be reasonably argued that he rendered aid to them because now they know not to rely on the 4th Amendment to conceal their plotting and planning. This makes it more difficult (perhaps) to catch them.

And it certainly could be argued (reasonably) that this has provided them with some comfort. It is more comfortable to be exposed to lowered risk.

Forget "treason" though. The simple felonies involved in revealing classified information should suffice for criminal justice purposes.

I don't think anybody, including terrorists, would make the mistake of relying on the Fourth Amendment to protect any kind of plot whatsoever, even before this leak.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Yes, the laws exist for a reason, and the government broke them. It doesn't matter that he wasn't elected. He exposed the crimes of people who were elected. He tried to complain to the people above him, as he explains in the interview, but they wouldn't listen. So he decided that we should all decide for ourselves, and I'm glad he made that decision and admire his bravery in doing so. You can say it wasn't his decision to make, but it wasn't the U.S. government's decision to spy on every American in such a fashion, and that is what we should be worried about. The government is not going to hold itself accountable, and we can't if we don't know what they're doing.

It MIGHT be that the government broke the laws.

If so, the ones responsible need to get attended to. Let's say -- ya know -- prosecuted.

But there is another law that says, simply, Thou shalt not reveal classified information. That's the law SNOWDEN broke.

He had no right to do so no matter how noble he thought he was in doing so.

The ones responsible will not be attended to. For starters, the government maintains a monopoly on justice, thus it's not going to bring itself to justice. Secondly, nobody has standing to bring a case against the government because the program is top secret and nobody can prove that they've had their information stolen.

That's how the government operates. So tell me how they're supposed to be held accountable in an environment where they can criminalize exposing their crimes. Furthermore, explain how they're supposed to be held accountable when, absent Snowden, nobody even knows this is happening in the first place.

When the government makes it illegal to expose its criminal acts then you'll have to forgive me for not objecting when those laws are broken.

The ones responsible will not be attended to. Maybe not. But then again, you could be wrong. No offense, but your assertion comes without authority behind it.

And the claimed "monopoly" the government has on justice does not prevent them from getting prosecuted from time to time. Disgracefully, a special prosecutor went after Scooter Libby and damn near ruined the man.

So again, I must decline your invitation to be as dismissive of our somewhat ragged system as you are.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." - Article 3, Section 3

Obviously Snowden has committed nothing even resembling treason.

It isn't "obvious" and it might not even be true. IT could be reasonably argued that he rendered aid to them because now they know not to rely on the 4th Amendment to conceal their plotting and planning. This makes it more difficult (perhaps) to catch them.

And it certainly could be argued (reasonably) that this has provided them with some comfort. It is more comfortable to be exposed to lowered risk.

Forget "treason" though. The simple felonies involved in revealing classified information should suffice for criminal justice purposes.

I don't think anybody, including terrorists, would make the mistake of relying on the Fourth Amendment to protect any kind of plot whatsoever, even before this leak.

Really? You don't think they felt more secure in the knowledge that we have a bunch of delusional liberals running the show who cannot fathom that interdicting their terrorist plots is NOT the same thing as investigating mere criminality?

I think you are sadly off base. WAY off base.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It MIGHT be that the government broke the laws.

If so, the ones responsible need to get attended to. Let's say -- ya know -- prosecuted.

But there is another law that says, simply, Thou shalt not reveal classified information. That's the law SNOWDEN broke.

He had no right to do so no matter how noble he thought he was in doing so.

The ones responsible will not be attended to. For starters, the government maintains a monopoly on justice, thus it's not going to bring itself to justice. Secondly, nobody has standing to bring a case against the government because the program is top secret and nobody can prove that they've had their information stolen.

That's how the government operates. So tell me how they're supposed to be held accountable in an environment where they can criminalize exposing their crimes. Furthermore, explain how they're supposed to be held accountable when, absent Snowden, nobody even knows this is happening in the first place.

When the government makes it illegal to expose its criminal acts then you'll have to forgive me for not objecting when those laws are broken.

The ones responsible will not be attended to. Maybe not. But then again, you could be wrong. No offense, but your assertion comes without authority behind it.

And the claimed "monopoly" the government has on justice does not prevent them from getting prosecuted from time to time. Disgracefully, a special prosecutor went after Scooter Libby and damn near ruined the man.

So again, I must decline your invitation to be as dismissive of our somewhat ragged system as you are.

Fair enough, any comment on the rest of the post?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It isn't "obvious" and it might not even be true. IT could be reasonably argued that he rendered aid to them because now they know not to rely on the 4th Amendment to conceal their plotting and planning. This makes it more difficult (perhaps) to catch them.

And it certainly could be argued (reasonably) that this has provided them with some comfort. It is more comfortable to be exposed to lowered risk.

Forget "treason" though. The simple felonies involved in revealing classified information should suffice for criminal justice purposes.

I don't think anybody, including terrorists, would make the mistake of relying on the Fourth Amendment to protect any kind of plot whatsoever, even before this leak.

Really? You don't think they felt more secure in the knowledge that we have a bunch of delusional liberals running the show who cannot fathom that interdicting their terrorist plots is NOT the same thing as investigating mere criminality?

I think you are sadly off base. WAY off base.

No, because I don't believe anybody could possibly make the argument that the Fourth Amendment has meant anything to the federal government in a very long time.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I don't think anybody, including terrorists, would make the mistake of relying on the Fourth Amendment to protect any kind of plot whatsoever, even before this leak.

Really? You don't think they felt more secure in the knowledge that we have a bunch of delusional liberals running the show who cannot fathom that interdicting their terrorist plots is NOT the same thing as investigating mere criminality?

I think you are sadly off base. WAY off base.

No, because I don't believe anybody could possibly make the argument that the Fourth Amendment has meant anything to the federal government in a very long time.

That's ok. Your "belief" is obviously defective and without rational basis.

 

[Votto]

Hey --- how about getting our chanting ready when we meet outside his trial???

"Obama lied -- our Freedom died"

"Hey Hey, Ho Ho, All He Did was Let us Know"

Say what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since when is it any big surprise the government spies on the denizens of this country?
I'm not thrilled with the concept but understand it. I am disgusted if such spying was used for political power and political gain instead of using that info and ability to protect said denizens of the USA.

Logic dictates that if the Government wanted the right to spy on us, they (the founders) wouldn't have written the 4th Amendment. That's why it's such a surprise.

 

[Katzndogz]

If some brave soul had come forward to tell the world about the concentration camps what would the nazis have done?

Does anyone in the world not think that obama's war will stop with Americans? No one trusts or respects the creature who betrays those who supported him first. Right now there is not a parliamentary hall, presidential office or king's chamber that is failing to discuss ways of dealing with the american problem before it escapes its cage. If it hasn't already.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really? You don't think they felt more secure in the knowledge that we have a bunch of delusional liberals running the show who cannot fathom that interdicting their terrorist plots is NOT the same thing as investigating mere criminality?

I think you are sadly off base. WAY off base.

No, because I don't believe anybody could possibly make the argument that the Fourth Amendment has meant anything to the federal government in a very long time.

That's ok. Your "belief" is obviously defective and without rational basis.

That must be it.