Obama on Snowden: More condescension, ignorance and lies

[TheGreatGatsby]

President Barack Obama has publicly displayed a relaxed attitude toward Snowden's movements, saying last month that he wouldn't be "scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker."

Condescension (and agism) - What does Snowden's age have to do with it? Isn't this allegely the president whose all about the youth? Oh, that's just when he's wading through teenybop shows for votes.

Ignorance - Hacker? Last, I check there was no case that Snowden was hacker. Maybe, that's part of the gestapo's secret charges.

Lies - Obama is doing anything he can to get Snowden. He even had the Bolivian president's flight rerouted mid air out of fear that Snowden was on the plane.

 

[Mr. H.]

Obama's a moron, that's a given.
Regardless, Snowden is a criminal and a fugitive and should be brought to justice here in the States.

 

[aaronleland]

I didn't expect anything less. He has to minimize the damage while displaying a nonchalant attitude towards the situation. He won't be scrambling jets, but he will be pulling all the diplomatic strings he possibly can to get Snowden back to the US. It's politics as usual.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I didn't expect anything less. He has to minimize the damage while displaying a nonchalant attitude towards the situation. He won't be scrambling jets, but he will be pulling all the diplomatic strings he possibly can to get Snowden back to the US. It's politics as usual.

I think Obama is worried about Snowden exposing him further.

 

[aaronleland]

I didn't expect anything less. He has to minimize the damage while displaying a nonchalant attitude towards the situation. He won't be scrambling jets, but he will be pulling all the diplomatic strings he possibly can to get Snowden back to the US. It's politics as usual.

I think Obama is worried about Snowden exposing him further.

It's quite possible Obama has no idea what information Snowden has, or what he is willing to reveal. That thought probably worries him more than anything else.

 

[Mr. H.]

I didn't expect anything less. He has to minimize the damage while displaying a nonchalant attitude towards the situation. He won't be scrambling jets, but he will be pulling all the diplomatic strings he possibly can to get Snowden back to the US. It's politics as usual.

I think Obama is worried about Snowden exposing him further.

It's quite possible Obama has no idea what information Snowden has, or what he is willing to reveal. That thought probably worries him more than anything else.

And it should worry all Americans.

 

[daveman]

Obama's a moron, that's a given.
Regardless, Snowden is a criminal and a fugitive and should be brought to justice here in the States.

Indeed. Given the way other whistleblowers at NSA have been treated, I can see why Snowden thought he had no choice but to go public.

Nevertheless, he violated the agreement he had with the government re: handling and release of classified materials, and should face trial for that.

But a quick note for the Obamabots here:

Embarrassing Obama is not treason. Stop insisting it is.

 

[daveman]

I didn't expect anything less. He has to minimize the damage while displaying a nonchalant attitude towards the situation. He won't be scrambling jets, but he will be pulling all the diplomatic strings he possibly can to get Snowden back to the US. It's politics as usual.

I think Obama is worried about Snowden exposing him further.

It's quite possible Obama has no idea what information Snowden has, or what he is willing to reveal. That thought probably worries him more than anything else.

But Obama's primary concern is Obama -- NOT the United States.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama's a moron, that's a given.
Regardless, Snowden is a criminal and a fugitive and should be brought to justice here in the States.

Indeed. Given the way other whistleblowers at NSA have been treated, I can see why Snowden thought he had no choice but to go public.

Nevertheless, he violated the agreement he had with the government re: handling and release of classified materials, and should face trial for that.

But a quick note for the Obamabots here:

Embarrassing Obama is not treason. Stop insisting it is.

Stop. There isn't even a statute that states that the govt. can spy on Americans en masse. Let alone the fact that the Constitution prohibits this type of dragnet policing against innocent civilians. The system needs to be corrected. Why should Snowden be on trial for doing the right thing?

 

[daveman]

Obama's a moron, that's a given.
Regardless, Snowden is a criminal and a fugitive and should be brought to justice here in the States.

Indeed. Given the way other whistleblowers at NSA have been treated, I can see why Snowden thought he had no choice but to go public.

Nevertheless, he violated the agreement he had with the government re: handling and release of classified materials, and should face trial for that.

But a quick note for the Obamabots here:

Embarrassing Obama is not treason. Stop insisting it is.

Stop. There isn't even a statute that states that the govt. can spy on Americans en masse. Let alone the fact that the Constitution prohibits this type of dragnet policing against innocent civilians. The system needs to be corrected. Why should Snowden be on trial for doing the right thing?

Because he still broke the law doing it.

He signed a Standard Form 312 at least twice, depending on his clearance level, and probably made one verbal attestation of his agreement not to disclose classified information.

We are a nation of laws. He broke one. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad he did. What he revealed NEEDED to be revealed.

But that doesn't give him a free pass.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think Obama is worried about Snowden exposing him further.

It's quite possible Obama has no idea what information Snowden has, or what he is willing to reveal. That thought probably worries him more than anything else.

And it should worry all Americans.

Why? After all, if we have nothing to hide.....

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Indeed. Given the way other whistleblowers at NSA have been treated, I can see why Snowden thought he had no choice but to go public.

Nevertheless, he violated the agreement he had with the government re: handling and release of classified materials, and should face trial for that.

But a quick note for the Obamabots here:

Embarrassing Obama is not treason. Stop insisting it is.

Stop. There isn't even a statute that states that the govt. can spy on Americans en masse. Let alone the fact that the Constitution prohibits this type of dragnet policing against innocent civilians. The system needs to be corrected. Why should Snowden be on trial for doing the right thing?

Because he still broke the law doing it.

He signed a Standard Form 312 at least twice, depending on his clearance level, and probably made one verbal attestation of his agreement not to disclose classified information.

We are a nation of laws. He broke one. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad he did. What he revealed NEEDED to be revealed.

But that doesn't give him a free pass.

Again, the Constitution is clear about unreasonable, warrantless searches. I'm all for spying on the enemy. But, there' a right way and a wrong way to do it. The government is tyranical and prosecuting the guy that is making everyone aware, does nobody good. What you're saying is, we got to be strict about this. How about we be strict in regards to the Constitution?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It's quite possible Obama has no idea what information Snowden has, or what he is willing to reveal. That thought probably worries him more than anything else.

And it should worry all Americans.

Why? After all, if we have nothing to hide.....

You may want your personal details in the hands of unknown strangers..............

 

[FA_Q2]

Indeed. Given the way other whistleblowers at NSA have been treated, I can see why Snowden thought he had no choice but to go public.

Nevertheless, he violated the agreement he had with the government re: handling and release of classified materials, and should face trial for that.

But a quick note for the Obamabots here:

Embarrassing Obama is not treason. Stop insisting it is.

Stop. There isn't even a statute that states that the govt. can spy on Americans en masse. Let alone the fact that the Constitution prohibits this type of dragnet policing against innocent civilians. The system needs to be corrected. Why should Snowden be on trial for doing the right thing?

Because he still broke the law doing it.

He signed a Standard Form 312 at least twice, depending on his clearance level, and probably made one verbal attestation of his agreement not to disclose classified information.

We are a nation of laws. He broke one. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad he did. What he revealed NEEDED to be revealed.

But that doesn't give him a free pass.

With that mentality though, whistleblowing becomes impossible. You understand that the government makes the laws and inherently built into a system like that is the fact that corrupt government will make laws that protect that corruption.

Snowden revealed that the government is setting up a system that is inherently unconstitutional and what you are demanding is that he face ‘justice.’ The government protects whistleblowers in the private sector because it is known that to have oversight like that you MUST have legal protection. The same concept is withheld from government because THEY DON’T WANT OVERSIGHT.

I ask how you think that the people can oversee the government when the people are not allowed to even know what the government is doing? The answer is that it is impossible.

I hope he dose and if the court cannot show that he let loose other secretes, the jury acquits him. Of course, I doubt that will even be an option to be honest.

 

[daveman]

Stop. There isn't even a statute that states that the govt. can spy on Americans en masse. Let alone the fact that the Constitution prohibits this type of dragnet policing against innocent civilians. The system needs to be corrected. Why should Snowden be on trial for doing the right thing?

Because he still broke the law doing it.

He signed a Standard Form 312 at least twice, depending on his clearance level, and probably made one verbal attestation of his agreement not to disclose classified information.

We are a nation of laws. He broke one. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad he did. What he revealed NEEDED to be revealed.

But that doesn't give him a free pass.

Again, the Constitution is clear about unreasonable, warrantless searches. I'm all for spying on the enemy. But, there' a right way and a wrong way to do it. The government is tyranical and prosecuting the guy that is making everyone aware, does nobody good. What you're saying is, we got to be strict about this. How about we be strict in regards to the Constitution?

It's not a zero-sum game. If two parties have done something illegal, you don't prosecute one and let the other go.

Prosecute both of them.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Because he still broke the law doing it.

He signed a Standard Form 312 at least twice, depending on his clearance level, and probably made one verbal attestation of his agreement not to disclose classified information.

We are a nation of laws. He broke one. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad he did. What he revealed NEEDED to be revealed.

But that doesn't give him a free pass.

Again, the Constitution is clear about unreasonable, warrantless searches. I'm all for spying on the enemy. But, there' a right way and a wrong way to do it. The government is tyranical and prosecuting the guy that is making everyone aware, does nobody good. What you're saying is, we got to be strict about this. How about we be strict in regards to the Constitution?

It's not a zero-sum game. If two parties have done something illegal, you don't prosecute one and let the other go.

Prosecute both of them.

It's a zero-sum game for the government. They are trying to intimidate and harass anyone who stands in their way. You are just being a useful cog in their game. Stand up against the oppression and knock off the bull shit.

 

[daveman]

Stop. There isn't even a statute that states that the govt. can spy on Americans en masse. Let alone the fact that the Constitution prohibits this type of dragnet policing against innocent civilians. The system needs to be corrected. Why should Snowden be on trial for doing the right thing?

Because he still broke the law doing it.

He signed a Standard Form 312 at least twice, depending on his clearance level, and probably made one verbal attestation of his agreement not to disclose classified information.

We are a nation of laws. He broke one. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad he did. What he revealed NEEDED to be revealed.

But that doesn't give him a free pass.

With that mentality though, whistleblowing becomes impossible. You understand that the government makes the laws and inherently built into a system like that is the fact that corrupt government will make laws that protect that corruption.

Snowden revealed that the government is setting up a system that is inherently unconstitutional and what you are demanding is that he face ‘justice.’ The government protects whistleblowers in the private sector because it is known that to have oversight like that you MUST have legal protection. The same concept is withheld from government because THEY DON’T WANT OVERSIGHT.

I ask how you think that the people can oversee the government when the people are not allowed to even know what the government is doing? The answer is that it is impossible.

I hope he dose and if the court cannot show that he let loose other secretes, the jury acquits him. Of course, I doubt that will even be an option to be honest.

I agree, and I'm not saying the government shouldn't be held accountable for its wrongdoing. There needs to be a separate, independent court for government employees to blow their whistles in when the usual chain of command is corrupt, as NSA has shown itself to be.

Of course, given the corruption extant throughout this Administration, I don't have any idea how such a court would be formed.

The whole situation sucks. Snowden broke the law, but he did us all a huge service in bringing NSA's illegal acts to light.

But given how I've called for Bradley Manning to be prosecuted for violating the law, I have to call for Snowden to be prosecuted, too. I can't embrace a double standard here.

 

[FA_Q2]

Because he still broke the law doing it.

He signed a Standard Form 312 at least twice, depending on his clearance level, and probably made one verbal attestation of his agreement not to disclose classified information.

We are a nation of laws. He broke one. Don't get me wrong -- I'm glad he did. What he revealed NEEDED to be revealed.

But that doesn't give him a free pass.

With that mentality though, whistleblowing becomes impossible. You understand that the government makes the laws and inherently built into a system like that is the fact that corrupt government will make laws that protect that corruption.

Snowden revealed that the government is setting up a system that is inherently unconstitutional and what you are demanding is that he face ‘justice.’ The government protects whistleblowers in the private sector because it is known that to have oversight like that you MUST have legal protection. The same concept is withheld from government because THEY DON’T WANT OVERSIGHT.

I ask how you think that the people can oversee the government when the people are not allowed to even know what the government is doing? The answer is that it is impossible.

I hope he dose and if the court cannot show that he let loose other secretes, the jury acquits him. Of course, I doubt that will even be an option to be honest.

I agree, and I'm not saying the government shouldn't be held accountable for its wrongdoing. There needs to be a separate, independent court for government employees to blow their whistles in when the usual chain of command is corrupt, as NSA has shown itself to be.

Of course, given the corruption extant throughout this Administration, I don't have any idea how such a court would be formed.

The whole situation sucks. Snowden broke the law, but he did us all a huge service in bringing NSA's illegal acts to light.

But given how I've called for Bradley Manning to be prosecuted for violating the law, I have to call for Snowden to be prosecuted, too. I can't embrace a double standard here.

IMHO, I believe that is the purpose of juries, or at least one vital function they perform. Not only can they determine if the law was broken BUT also if the law should apply even if violated. Modern law rejects that concept BUT it can do nothing about it. Essentially, jury nullification.

I would LIKE to see that happen but I am not confident that the government is going to allow it.

 

[daveman]

Again, the Constitution is clear about unreasonable, warrantless searches. I'm all for spying on the enemy. But, there' a right way and a wrong way to do it. The government is tyranical and prosecuting the guy that is making everyone aware, does nobody good. What you're saying is, we got to be strict about this. How about we be strict in regards to the Constitution?

It's not a zero-sum game. If two parties have done something illegal, you don't prosecute one and let the other go.

Prosecute both of them.

It's a zero-sum game for the government. They are trying to intimidate and harass anyone who stands in their way. You are just being a useful cog in their game. Stand up against the oppression and knock off the bull shit.

Yes, they ARE trying to intimidate and harass anyone who stands in their way.

But insisting that both Snowden AND the government face punishment for their wrongdoing shows I'm just a useful cog...how, exactly? Wouldn't a useful cog insist that what NSA did was no big deal?

I'll give you a few moments for your ragegasm to subside and think this through.

 

[daveman]

With that mentality though, whistleblowing becomes impossible. You understand that the government makes the laws and inherently built into a system like that is the fact that corrupt government will make laws that protect that corruption.

Snowden revealed that the government is setting up a system that is inherently unconstitutional and what you are demanding is that he face ‘justice.’ The government protects whistleblowers in the private sector because it is known that to have oversight like that you MUST have legal protection. The same concept is withheld from government because THEY DON’T WANT OVERSIGHT.

I ask how you think that the people can oversee the government when the people are not allowed to even know what the government is doing? The answer is that it is impossible.

I hope he dose and if the court cannot show that he let loose other secretes, the jury acquits him. Of course, I doubt that will even be an option to be honest.

I agree, and I'm not saying the government shouldn't be held accountable for its wrongdoing. There needs to be a separate, independent court for government employees to blow their whistles in when the usual chain of command is corrupt, as NSA has shown itself to be.

Of course, given the corruption extant throughout this Administration, I don't have any idea how such a court would be formed.

The whole situation sucks. Snowden broke the law, but he did us all a huge service in bringing NSA's illegal acts to light.

But given how I've called for Bradley Manning to be prosecuted for violating the law, I have to call for Snowden to be prosecuted, too. I can't embrace a double standard here.

IMHO, I believe that is the purpose of juries, or at least one vital function they perform. Not only can they determine if the law was broken BUT also if the law should apply even if violated. Modern law rejects that concept BUT it can do nothing about it. Essentially, jury nullification.

I would LIKE to see that happen but I am not confident that the government is going to allow it.

Nor am I. A finding of Not Guilty would be immediately appealed by the government in hopes of finding a more tractable jury.