Obama on Snowden: More condescension, ignorance and lies

[Old Rocks]

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.

Exposing Obama further? Exposing that we use hacking to gain intel on other nations, just as they do on us? Telling these other nations how we do it. Those are the actions of a traitor, not a patriot.

Had Snowden simply pointed out that the domestic spying on American Citizens started under Bush was being continued under Obama, and stayed to face the heat, he would be regarded as a whistleblower, and a valued citizen. The course he took is not that of a citizen that is trying to improve our nation, but someone that hates and despises his naton.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

Sounds like a civil matter to me.

 

[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.

Sounds like a civil matter to me.

It's not.

18 USC § 798 - Disclosure of classified information | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[FA_Q2]

I love how this is allegedly so cut and dry to you yahoos. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Do you really think that the law was designed to send honorable men to jail?

The law is blind, and devoid of emotion. I believe it was designed to send people who broke it to jail regardless of what they're reasons are. Or at the very least it's designed to make sure those people go to trail- that is how the law works. I find it ironic that you want the NSA to be on trail for breaking the law, but you want to give Snowden a pass.

Just makes no sense.

Technically, that is untrue. The law does, indeed, include things like motive and situation. A single act, shooting someone and killing them, can be murder or it can be homicide or it can be self-defense. The difference in the first two can be as simple as intent or emotional state. The difference in the last one is situation and belief. Then you can even be declared innocent of a crime by reason of insanity when the act was criminal in every other way except your state of mind.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

He still broke the law, and regardless of what the outcome was- for better or worse- he goes to trail. You want the NSA on trail for something they did wrong, something that supposedly broke the law. Yet Snowden who did the same thing doesn't require the same treatment?

You say he did the right thing, but certainly a case could be made that the NSA was doing the right thing too. Anyhow, point is, you break the law you go to court- it's up to someone else to determine if you should do time or not.

I love how this is allegedly so cut and dry to you yahoos. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Do you really think that the law was designed to send honorable men to jail?

If the honorable man broke the law and is found guilty by a jury of his peers...yes. Of course.


Your hyperemotionalism has no bearing.

It has a complete bearing. The law is not to be a force for corruption.

 

[daveman]

I love how this is allegedly so cut and dry to you yahoos. It's called prosecutorial discretion. Do you really think that the law was designed to send honorable men to jail?

If the honorable man broke the law and is found guilty by a jury of his peers...yes. Of course.


Your hyperemotionalism has no bearing.

It has a complete bearing. The law is not to be a force for corruption.

Nor is it to be ignored when you like the law-breaker.

But at least you admit you're being hyperemotional. That's something, I suppose.