Glenn Beck and Ron Paul - Traitors?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He carried his laptops with him to Russia.

Are you suggesting some unproven nonsense about the Russians never taking a peak?

Seriously?

But hey, we can argue our opinions on the probabilities until we're blue in the face. Doesn't mean a thing.

So let's get him home and on the witness stand so we can find out?

What's wrong with that?

Prove that he brought that information with him to Russia.

What exactly would we find out with Snowden on the witness stand? Nothing. He wouldn't take the witness stand. He'd simply be imprisoned immediately and inevitably accept some plea deal to reduce his punishment and never actually get a chance to speak out about anything. Now, however, he can speak out immediately.

OK - let's get him and his laptops into a court and we can prove or disprove the allegations.

So you can't prove that he even has any of the information with him in Russia, let alone that he gave the Russian government access to said information. So we know, once again, that you're simply making things up.

Regardless, there's no need to get him into court. We already know he leaked information to the press, this is not a secret. As for the made up claims of him giving information to foreign governments, I'm afraid you'd need evidence before any actual trial, something you all seem a little short on.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Prove that he brought that information with him to Russia.

What exactly would we find out with Snowden on the witness stand? Nothing. He wouldn't take the witness stand. He'd simply be imprisoned immediately and inevitably accept some plea deal to reduce his punishment and never actually get a chance to speak out about anything. Now, however, he can speak out immediately.

OK - let's get him and his laptops into a court and we can prove or disprove the allegations.

So you can't prove that he even has any of the information with him in Russia, let alone that he gave the Russian government access to said information. So we know, once again, that you're simply making things up.

Regardless, there's no need to get him into court. We already know he leaked information to the press, this is not a secret. As for the made up claims of him giving information to foreign governments, I'm afraid you'd need evidence before any actual trial, something you all seem a little short on.

LOL - so your contention is that you cannot hold a trial until you prove that you really don't need a trial - just a sentencing hearing?

Of course we know that there is already enough evidence for a trial. You've admitted it. Now you're just acting afraid of what else my be uncovered in a trial...

Interesting.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. But the idea that the Russians would need his permission to access everything he had in his laptops is good comedy central stuff ... don't think it would fly in court. Nor would most of your assertions. So I can see why you would oppose a trial.

 

[bripat9643]

He carried his laptops with him to Russia.

Are you suggesting some unproven nonsense about the Russians never taking a peak?

Seriously?

But hey, we can argue our opinions on the probabilities until we're blue in the face. Doesn't mean a thing.

So let's get him home and on the witness stand so we can find out?

What's wrong with that?

Prove that he brought that information with him to Russia.

What exactly would we find out with Snowden on the witness stand? Nothing. He wouldn't take the witness stand. He'd simply be imprisoned immediately and inevitably accept some plea deal to reduce his punishment and never actually get a chance to speak out about anything. Now, however, he can speak out immediately.

OK - let's get him and his laptops into a court and we can prove or disprove the allegations.

You are free to fantasize about what may or may not happen and what may or may not be proven.

I favor facts and evidence to fantasy ... so let's get this trial under way.

Why should he risk going to prison? What do you suppose the odds are of him getting a fair trial? Just about zero, I'd say.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK - let's get him and his laptops into a court and we can prove or disprove the allegations.

So you can't prove that he even has any of the information with him in Russia, let alone that he gave the Russian government access to said information. So we know, once again, that you're simply making things up.

Regardless, there's no need to get him into court. We already know he leaked information to the press, this is not a secret. As for the made up claims of him giving information to foreign governments, I'm afraid you'd need evidence before any actual trial, something you all seem a little short on.

LOL - so your contention is that you cannot hold a trial until you prove that you really don't need a trial - just a sentencing hearing?

Of course we know that there is already enough evidence for a trial. You've admitted it. Now you're just acting afraid of what else my be uncovered in a trial...

Interesting.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. But the idea that the Russians would need his permission to access everything he had in his laptops is good comedy central stuff ... don't think it would fly in court. Nor would most of your assertions. So I can see why you would oppose a trial.

Well you can't simply accuse me of murder and bring me to trial based on your word alone. There has to be some evidence, obviously.

You're sticking with the Russians getting his laptops after you failed to prove that he even has his laptops with him in Russia? Simply repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well you can't simply accuse me of murder and bring me to trial based on your word alone. There has to be some evidence, obviously.

And the evidence to support the appropriateness of a trial isn't in question.

So let's have the trial and let's see about the rest of this stuff.

 

[cutter]

So you can't prove that he even has any of the information with him in Russia, let alone that he gave the Russian government access to said information. So we know, once again, that you're simply making things up.

Regardless, there's no need to get him into court. We already know he leaked information to the press, this is not a secret. As for the made up claims of him giving information to foreign governments, I'm afraid you'd need evidence before any actual trial, something you all seem a little short on.

LOL - so your contention is that you cannot hold a trial until you prove that you really don't need a trial - just a sentencing hearing?

Of course we know that there is already enough evidence for a trial. You've admitted it. Now you're just acting afraid of what else my be uncovered in a trial...

Interesting.

Well you are entitled to your opinion. But the idea that the Russians would need his permission to access everything he had in his laptops is good comedy central stuff ... don't think it would fly in court. Nor would most of your assertions. So I can see why you would oppose a trial.

Well you can't simply accuse me of murder and bring me to trial based on your word alone. There has to be some evidence, obviously.

You're sticking with the Russians getting his laptops after you failed to prove that he even has his laptops with him in Russia? Simply repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

With the Patriot Act you don't need proof, evidence, public trial or jury. A ruling by a secret court or just a cell in Guantanamo. Some country we've become.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Prove that he brought that information with him to Russia.

What exactly would we find out with Snowden on the witness stand? Nothing. He wouldn't take the witness stand. He'd simply be imprisoned immediately and inevitably accept some plea deal to reduce his punishment and never actually get a chance to speak out about anything. Now, however, he can speak out immediately.

OK - let's get him and his laptops into a court and we can prove or disprove the allegations.

You are free to fantasize about what may or may not happen and what may or may not be proven.

I favor facts and evidence to fantasy ... so let's get this trial under way.

Why should he risk going to prison? What do you suppose the odds are of him getting a fair trial? Just about zero, I'd say.

I'd say his odds of getting a fair trial are pretty good in the U.S.
The reason he should ??? Well, imho, if he doesn't want to go down in the history books as a traitor (because that is certainly the majority opinion) he should defend his actions.

If he's content to hang with his new Russian bros for the rest of his life, then yeah, I guess he can choose to do that if he wants.

But what happens when the Russians get tired of him? Maybe they just let him blend into Russian life without a hitch. Or maybe they decide his usefulness is over and throw him under the bus in order to get something from the U.S. in some future negotiations.

Maybe he isn't worried about that. I would be.

 

[bripat9643]

Well you can't simply accuse me of murder and bring me to trial based on your word alone. There has to be some evidence, obviously.

And the evidence to support the appropriateness of a trial isn't in question.

So let's have the trial and let's see about the rest of this stuff.

The appropriateness of a trial obviously is in question. Furthermore, the chances of Snowden getting a fair trial are less than zero. He will never return to the United States for a trial, so how do you intend to proceed? Or are you just impotently flapping your gums?

 

[bripat9643]

OK - let's get him and his laptops into a court and we can prove or disprove the allegations.

You are free to fantasize about what may or may not happen and what may or may not be proven.

I favor facts and evidence to fantasy ... so let's get this trial under way.

Why should he risk going to prison? What do you suppose the odds are of him getting a fair trial? Just about zero, I'd say.

I'd say his odds of getting a fair trial are pretty good in the U.S.
The reason he should ??? Well, imho, if he doesn't want to go down in the history books as a traitor (because that is certainly the majority opinion) he should defend his actions.

If he's content to hang with his new Russian bros for the rest of his life, then yeah, I guess he can choose to do that if he wants.

But what happens when the Russians get tired of him? Maybe they just let him blend into Russian life without a hitch. Or maybe they decide his usefulness is over and throw him under the bus in order to get something from the U.S. in some future negotiations.

Maybe he isn't worried about that. I would be.

I'd say his odds of getting a fair trial are less than zero. You aren't acquainted with the recent evolution of our justice system if you think Enemy #1 of the U.S. government is going to get a fair trial. Whatever his fait in Russia, it's probably far better than sitting in a U.S prison for the next 40 years. If the Russians "throw him under the bus," then he'll be right where your advising him to go. Where's the upside of turning himself in?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK - let's get him and his laptops into a court and we can prove or disprove the allegations.

You are free to fantasize about what may or may not happen and what may or may not be proven.

I favor facts and evidence to fantasy ... so let's get this trial under way.

Why should he risk going to prison? What do you suppose the odds are of him getting a fair trial? Just about zero, I'd say.

I'd say his odds of getting a fair trial are pretty good in the U.S.
The reason he should ??? Well, imho, if he doesn't want to go down in the history books as a traitor (because that is certainly the majority opinion) he should defend his actions.

If he's content to hang with his new Russian bros for the rest of his life, then yeah, I guess he can choose to do that if he wants.

But what happens when the Russians get tired of him? Maybe they just let him blend into Russian life without a hitch. Or maybe they decide his usefulness is over and throw him under the bus in order to get something from the U.S. in some future negotiations.

Maybe he isn't worried about that. I would be.

The majority opinion? Which poll says that?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If Treason is defined as Defending Your Country from Tyranny, than count me in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the US.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Snowden cannot get a fair trial in the US.

Judging from the response from the U.S. government I would say that's absolutely correct.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Why should he risk going to prison? What do you suppose the odds are of him getting a fair trial? Just about zero, I'd say.

I'd say his odds of getting a fair trial are pretty good in the U.S.
The reason he should ??? Well, imho, if he doesn't want to go down in the history books as a traitor (because that is certainly the majority opinion) he should defend his actions.

If he's content to hang with his new Russian bros for the rest of his life, then yeah, I guess he can choose to do that if he wants.

But what happens when the Russians get tired of him? Maybe they just let him blend into Russian life without a hitch. Or maybe they decide his usefulness is over and throw him under the bus in order to get something from the U.S. in some future negotiations.

Maybe he isn't worried about that. I would be.

The majority opinion? Which poll says that?

Poll Results: Snowden

The latest one I've seen.

Even if Snowden were tried and convicted, the high-profile politicization of his case means he could still go down as a hero.
G. Gordon Liddy was a right-wing talk show host after he got out of jail.
Oliver North was a right wing darling

The far left elected (and re-elected) a mayor in DC even after he did time for crack.

Point is - if you really believe in your cause and you are willing to put national security on the line to fight for your cause, how come he's not willing to put his own security on the line?

It makes him look a lot less like a patriot and a lot more like a kid whose 15 minutes of fame blew up in his face.

OK, Kevin you and I have different opinions. We aren't going to change the other ones mind. I respect the way you disagree without being disagreeable. Props and I've enjoyed our exchange.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'd say his odds of getting a fair trial are pretty good in the U.S.
The reason he should ??? Well, imho, if he doesn't want to go down in the history books as a traitor (because that is certainly the majority opinion) he should defend his actions.

If he's content to hang with his new Russian bros for the rest of his life, then yeah, I guess he can choose to do that if he wants.

But what happens when the Russians get tired of him? Maybe they just let him blend into Russian life without a hitch. Or maybe they decide his usefulness is over and throw him under the bus in order to get something from the U.S. in some future negotiations.

Maybe he isn't worried about that. I would be.

The majority opinion? Which poll says that?

Poll Results: Snowden

The latest one I've seen.

Even if Snowden were tried and convicted, the high-profile politicization of his case means he could still go down as a hero.
G. Gordon Liddy was a right-wing talk show host after he got out of jail.
Oliver North was a right wing darling

The far left elected (and re-elected) a mayor in DC even after he did time for crack.

Point is - if you really believe in your cause and you are willing to put national security on the line to fight for your cause, how come he's not willing to put his own security on the line?

It makes him look a lot less like a patriot and a lot more like a kid whose 15 minutes of fame blew up in his face.

OK, Kevin you and I have different opinions. We aren't going to change the other ones mind. I respect the way you disagree without being disagreeable. Props and I've enjoyed our exchange.

Interesting. That does seem to be the most recent poll on the subject, but it doesn't actually question whether people believe he's a traitor. Only whether they approve or disprove, and whether or not they would support prosecution.

National (US) Poll - July 10, 2013 - U.S. Voters Say Snowden Is Whi | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

That's an older poll, but it asks whether people viewed Snowden as a whistle blower or a traitor with 55% in favor of whistle blower.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Edward Snowden’s decision to leak classified information on U.S. surveillance programs has been praised as valiant and also denounced as a crime endangering millions.

So is he a traitor or a hero?

Neither.

He’s a criminal suspect:

Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

U.S. charges Snowden with espionage - The Washington Post

 

[TooTall]

We can all thank Blen Geck for talking all those rich cons into buying gold, which is now worth 33% less.

Was he the only one who had an advertiser that sold gold? I wonder if any liberal bedwetters bought gold before it dropped in value.

 

[Mojo2]

“I think I have just read about the man for which I have waited,” tweeted conservative commentator Glenn Beck after reading the original Guardian report.

Former Republican Rep. Ron Paul, an outspoken tea partier and former presidential candidate, too, applauded Snowden, saying, “We should be thankful for individuals” like him “who speak out, despite the risk.”

"On the other hand, lawmakers across both parties — from red-meat conservative Republicans to reliably left-leaning Democrats — have assailed the deed as a possible act of treason."

House Speaker John Boehner called Snowden “a traitor” on Tuesday during an appearance on “Good Morning America.”

"I don't look at this as being a whistle-blower. I think it's an act of treason," said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat.
Edward Snowden, hero or traitor? NSA leaker divides political world in sometimes-unpredictable ways - NY Daily News

Look, the Government establishment MUSt treat Snowden like a traitor.

That is their best play.

Otherwise it might encourage others to do the same. Not good.

But, as a vivid demonstration of a Government gone berserk with power and out of control Constitutionally, Snowden's act is as patriotic as any i've ever seen.

He knowingly, risked EVERYTHING for this country to reveal the inconvenient truths about the NSA and its higher ups including obama.

Showden = Hero.

Big time!

 

[Clementine]

Snowden exposed the Obama administration. How else will the public find out about sinister deeds if people don't risk being a whistle blower? Obama and the liberals used to praise them.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Here's a big issue regarding Snowden that I have questions about:

Are there more appropriate and legal avenues that Snowden could have pursued in order to express his concerns about the program that would not have compromised classified information? Did he attempt to use any of these avenues first?

If the answers to those two questions are yes and then no, then I have a hard time supporting his actions.

I also have a lot of questions about his actions, his intentions, and what kind of information he took with him when he left the country. Many of these questions can probably only be fully answered if he returns to the U.S.

I'm not saying the guy is a hero or a traitor yet. And anyone who makes that call based only on what they've heard from pundits, is making an ill-informed decision. IMHO.