Snowden's Statement against the Regime: Obama fears and informed people

[clevergirl]

Your friend may be a nice guy to you and what not; but he indeed is another government coward, who is happy with his gravy.

And government is not first and foremost tasked with our protection. In fact, little of protection is even stated in the Constitution aside from very basic military matters. And even the second amendment puts militias in the hands of the people; not the federal government. You've simply been conditioned to the government's over-reach to not understand these things.

The government is only tasked to abide to the amendments of the Constitution and to honorably represent the people. There is no honor in what the government is doing.

I disagree- though admit to over-simplifying. The Constitution is tasked with our protection first and foremost which should go without saying, but I digress- Our protections as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

My friend is not on a "gravy train". He accepts some contract work from our government. Due to his expertise he, his company, is often offered contracts-that is all.

I have yet to read anyone taking his arguments, as I presented them, to task. When I posed the question I was ambivalent towards Snowden's guilt or innocence. My friends reasoning swayed me to support the charges in order to bring Snowden back to the US to answer to them.

No. The government could justify invading your home at any time or throwing you in a prinson at any time in the name of protection if their primary function was protection. You'll notice that Constitution doesn't even use the word police.

'Your friend' does not have the right to be taking innocent people's communications and phone records. If you think they do, then you deserve to lose your rights.

Slow down! My "friend" works in storage I never said he took any one's anything.

Your assertion is a non starter- as part of what we have in way of Constitutional protections, your stated "fear" is ridiculous. We have a military; a police force; firefighters- all employed to "protect" citizens and their property from physical harm- These entities have limited and specific constraints- this is to ensure that all of our personal rights are likewise protected.

Now please move back to the issue at hand.

Snowden had a legal recourse under Whistle Blower laws. He chose instead to steal information that did not belong to him. That's theft. Whether or not he committed espionage remains to be seen. We need to bring him back in order to discover that or not.

 

[Politico]

He should go to jail for wasting everyone's time.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I disagree- though admit to over-simplifying. The Constitution is tasked with our protection first and foremost which should go without saying, but I digress- Our protections as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

My friend is not on a "gravy train". He accepts some contract work from our government. Due to his expertise he, his company, is often offered contracts-that is all.

I have yet to read anyone taking his arguments, as I presented them, to task. When I posed the question I was ambivalent towards Snowden's guilt or innocence. My friends reasoning swayed me to support the charges in order to bring Snowden back to the US to answer to them.

No. The government could justify invading your home at any time or throwing you in a prinson at any time in the name of protection if their primary function was protection. You'll notice that Constitution doesn't even use the word police.

'Your friend' does not have the right to be taking innocent people's communications and phone records. If you think they do, then you deserve to lose your rights.

Slow down! My "friend" works in storage I never said he took any one's anything.

Your assertion is a non starter- as part of what we have in way of Constitutional protections, your stated "fear" is ridiculous. We have a military; a police force; firefighters- all employed to "protect" citizens and their property from physical harm- These entities have limited and specific constraints- this is to ensure that all of our personal rights are likewise protected.

Now please move back to the issue at hand.

Snowden had a legal recourse under Whistle Blower laws. He chose instead to steal information that did not belong to him. That's theft. Whether or not he committed espionage remains to be seen. We need to bring him back in order to discover that or not.

Forgetting all the noise for a minute, the government is gathering people's private e-mails and phone records and other data. That is not information that they have a right to collect. Snowden was right to let us know about our tyrannical government. I mean, think about it; even as we speak, the government is categorizing citizens into groups (irrespective of whether a crime has been committed) and using that information accordingly. They have no right to do that. NONE.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. The government could justify invading your home at any time or throwing you in a prinson at any time in the name of protection if their primary function was protection. You'll notice that Constitution doesn't even use the word police.

'Your friend' does not have the right to be taking innocent people's communications and phone records. If you think they do, then you deserve to lose your rights.

Slow down! My "friend" works in storage I never said he took any one's anything.

Your assertion is a non starter- as part of what we have in way of Constitutional protections, your stated "fear" is ridiculous. We have a military; a police force; firefighters- all employed to "protect" citizens and their property from physical harm- These entities have limited and specific constraints- this is to ensure that all of our personal rights are likewise protected.

Now please move back to the issue at hand.

Snowden had a legal recourse under Whistle Blower laws. He chose instead to steal information that did not belong to him. That's theft. Whether or not he committed espionage remains to be seen. We need to bring him back in order to discover that or not.

Forgetting all the noise for a minute, the government is gathering people's private e-mails and phone records and other data. That is not information that they have a right to collect. Snowden was right to let us know about our tyrannical government. I mean, think about it; even as we speak, the government is categorizing citizens into groups (irrespective of whether a crime has been committed) and using that information accordingly. They have no right to do that. NONE.

What exactly does "using that information accordingly" mean?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Slow down! My "friend" works in storage I never said he took any one's anything.

Your assertion is a non starter- as part of what we have in way of Constitutional protections, your stated "fear" is ridiculous. We have a military; a police force; firefighters- all employed to "protect" citizens and their property from physical harm- These entities have limited and specific constraints- this is to ensure that all of our personal rights are likewise protected.

Now please move back to the issue at hand.

Snowden had a legal recourse under Whistle Blower laws. He chose instead to steal information that did not belong to him. That's theft. Whether or not he committed espionage remains to be seen. We need to bring him back in order to discover that or not.

Forgetting all the noise for a minute, the government is gathering people's private e-mails and phone records and other data. That is not information that they have a right to collect. Snowden was right to let us know about our tyrannical government. I mean, think about it; even as we speak, the government is categorizing citizens into groups (irrespective of whether a crime has been committed) and using that information accordingly. They have no right to do that. NONE.

What exactly does "using that information accordingly" mean?

You don't think that there isn't an elite underground that is using this information to their own personal advancement? GROW UP.

 

[dblack]

Poor, poor Snowden

Gets to live out his life in an airport

Of course, if he decides to return, we have a nice jail cell for him

I'm very certain that if Snowden had done the exact same thing during the Bush era, you'd be hailing him as a hero.

The partisan hypocrisy exposed by the NSA leaks (from both sides) is nearly as ugly as the abuse of state power they revealed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Eric Snowden has spoken out against the Obama regime. His main points are the Obama's seeks revenge against whistle blowers and that an informed public is the last thing that Obama wants.

One week ago I left Hong Kong after it became clear that my freedom and safety were under threat for revealing the truth. My continued liberty has been owed to the efforts of friends new and old, family, and others who I have never met and probably never will. I trusted them with my life and they returned that trust with a faith in me for which I will always be thankful.

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic "wheeling and dealing" over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile. These are the old, bad tools of political aggression. Their purpose is to frighten, not me, but those who would come after me.

For decades the United States of America has been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. Sadly, this right, laid out and voted for by the U.S. in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is now being rejected by the current government of my country. The Obama administration has now adopted the strategy of using citizenship as a weapon. Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport, leaving me a stateless person. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum.

In the end the Obama administration is not afraid of whistleblowers like me, Bradley Manning or Thomas Drake. We are stateless, imprisoned, or powerless. No, the Obama administration is afraid of you. It is afraid of an informed, angry public demanding the constitutional government it was promised — and it should be.

I am unbowed in my convictions and impressed at the efforts taken by so many.

Edward Joseph Snowden

Monday 1st July 2013

That asshole is a traitor. While his revelations about domestic spying were useful to point out the dangers of the course "W" put us on, his continued efforts to inflict injury on the intelligence gathering abilities of the US in other nations simply points out that the little bastard intended only harm to our nation from the git-go.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Sometimes circumstances call for instances in which people liek Snowden have to tell us the truth the way they did. Do you honestly think the people who have the power to screw you are going to let you reveal their lies and schemes? I don't think so.

Do you find honor in loyalty towards liars?

I find honor in loyalty to a principle. Our entire nation is a principle. The founding fathers created this principle and then tried to define it in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I didn't go to Vietnam for Lyndon Baines Johnson. I didn't go to Vietnam for any Senator or Representative serving at the time. I didn't go because of any general or member of the government. I went to Vietnam because I believed that my country is the greatest nation on the face of this planet and my family had benefitted from the freedoms that were afforded them. I went to Vietnam because I felt I owed something and wanted to pay something back.

I became a policeman for partly the same reasons. It sure as hell wasn't the respect or the money or the incredible working environment.

Snowden is a traitor. He deserves to be treated like one. If he comes back on his own, he should be met at the airport, handcuffed, tried and if convicted then I would imagine that the death penalty will be possible.

Snowden's violation of his oath is no more palatible than the scores of spy's that sit rotting in federal prisons right now.

You went to Vietnam cos you were drafted and you became a police officer to smack some hoodlum's head against a hood of your car while getting paid for it. Fuck your police state, asshole.

Typical.

For your edification, I went to Vietnam because I VOLUNTEERED. Just like my son, each of my three brothers, my father, his father, and his father volunteered to serve his country. Something, I have no doubt, that is as foreign to you as the meaning of the oaths that each of us took at the beginning of our service. Obviously, the reason for your lack of concern over Snowden violating his.

I became a cop for the same reason that I would imagine that (at the time) 99.9% of the cops I worked with became cops. We took an oath then because we wanted to make a positive difference in our part of the world. I was honored on several occasions to identify and work for the dismissal of several officers who only wore the badge to be a bully.

You know, I usually disagree with RightWinger and Sallow. But I RESPECT their opinions because they usually argue them with integrity. They only resort to derogatory comments when provoked. You've not broken a record on this forum, but in your inability to articulately argue a point, you've resorted to name calling...

Keep this up and you'll be sitting at the 'kids table' for quite some time...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I disagree- though admit to over-simplifying. The Constitution is tasked with our protection first and foremost which should go without saying, but I digress- Our protections as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

My friend is not on a "gravy train". He accepts some contract work from our government. Due to his expertise he, his company, is often offered contracts-that is all.

I have yet to read anyone taking his arguments, as I presented them, to task. When I posed the question I was ambivalent towards Snowden's guilt or innocence. My friends reasoning swayed me to support the charges in order to bring Snowden back to the US to answer to them.

No. The government could justify invading your home at any time or throwing you in a prinson at any time in the name of protection if their primary function was protection. You'll notice that Constitution doesn't even use the word police.

'Your friend' does not have the right to be taking innocent people's communications and phone records. If you think they do, then you deserve to lose your rights.

Slow down! My "friend" works in storage I never said he took any one's anything.

Your assertion is a non starter- as part of what we have in way of Constitutional protections, your stated "fear" is ridiculous. We have a military; a police force; firefighters- all employed to "protect" citizens and their property from physical harm- These entities have limited and specific constraints- this is to ensure that all of our personal rights are likewise protected.

Now please move back to the issue at hand.

Snowden had a legal recourse under Whistle Blower laws. He chose instead to steal information that did not belong to him. That's theft. Whether or not he committed espionage remains to be seen. We need to bring him back in order to discover that or not.

You mean he stole the knowledge that the NSA was stealing from the citizens who pay for their operations/salary and exposed them?

We can't have someone exposing that kind of theft by stealing!

 

[deltex1]

If Obabble fears an informed public, he has no fears. An informed public would never have made the dope president in the first place.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I find honor in loyalty to a principle. Our entire nation is a principle. The founding fathers created this principle and then tried to define it in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I didn't go to Vietnam for Lyndon Baines Johnson. I didn't go to Vietnam for any Senator or Representative serving at the time. I didn't go because of any general or member of the government. I went to Vietnam because I believed that my country is the greatest nation on the face of this planet and my family had benefitted from the freedoms that were afforded them. I went to Vietnam because I felt I owed something and wanted to pay something back.

I became a policeman for partly the same reasons. It sure as hell wasn't the respect or the money or the incredible working environment.

Snowden is a traitor. He deserves to be treated like one. If he comes back on his own, he should be met at the airport, handcuffed, tried and if convicted then I would imagine that the death penalty will be possible.

Snowden's violation of his oath is no more palatible than the scores of spy's that sit rotting in federal prisons right now.

Not all soldiers are like that. They make wages. Meaning, they fight and get paid for it. It may be true that some soldiers became soldiers because that was one of the few options they had left.

Nations can't be principles, because nations aren't concepts created out of the imaginations of humans. Principles aren't tangible. Nations are.

You find honor in loyalty to a principle. I don't mind that. What I do mind is acting loyally on behalf of one principle, while ignoring others. Isn't honesty a principle as well? Transparency? Fairness? Why drop other principles for being loyal to a "principle"? There is more than one "moral" out there, Sniper. Loyalty can be blinding. It can make us blind to the real enemies, the real... "monsters." Those who have the power to destroy you, and the willingness to lie to you. Some say familiarity breeds contempt. Is it not true that people are becoming increasingly fed up with their corrupt and deceitful government?

Are all traitors bad people? What if a man knew a secret. The secret was a big one. A secret in which a nation kmurdered thousands and covered it. He knew he couldn't reveal the truth if he wnet through "the proper channels," which really means "their way in which they have all the advantages." Humans are predisposed to being rather nasty little mammals at times, aren't they? Behind all these flashy slogans of fairness and transparency is a slimy, grinning politician. The man knows he can't speak truth to power, because power is powerful, especially when motivated by wicked desires. What other option is left? If a plan is set in motion in which a man takes those secrets, and steps a little out of the range of the corrupt, he can tell his fellow citizens the truth. Though it may cost him, though it may destroy him, he feels that deep down what he is doing is right, because it is a level of honesty one can never hope to receive from the people in power.

Familiarity breeds contempt. I'm reaching a point in my life where I can no longer trust or respect America, and its distinction from China and Russia is becoming more and more blurred. Loyalty means nothing if it means being wicked and ignorant. The breaking of an oath has less weight than the revelations of a rotting nation.

Very well put. A nation is based on principles. This is supposed to be a nation of laws (although Barry and his cronies have done everything they can to destroy that principle recently - i.e., immigration, Obamacare implementation, etc.). When you take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, you not only swear to protect and defend the writing on that paper but also the principles that it was based upon. Freedom, fairness, equality, the rights of man. One of the reasons that the IRS scandal cuts me to the core.

Obviously, as with Nazi Germany in the 30's, if a man knew of the plan to exterminate the Jews, then he is bound by his concious and his honor to 'blow the whistle' on such secrets. But the secrets that Snowden knew were not killing anyone nor did it put anyone into harms way. Is it big brother? Yes, I believe it is. Is what the NSA doing wrong? Again, I believe it is wrong because a grandmother in Grand Island, Nebraska isn't planning to plant a bomb. But it is more the offense of the controllers (the administration) than the controlled (the NSA). It is from the same vein that makes us call the Ft. Hood shooting an act of 'work place violence.'

I understand your sentiments. I too believe that this nation is on a path to self destruction and that despite their statements that they want to be the "most transparent" administration in history, this group of thugs is hell bent on destroying this nation under the cover of darkness, secrets AND lies. I have moved the lion's share of my savings out of this country and have made my ranch literally 'self sustaining'.

But I can only reiterate that a man has only one thing that is truly valuable. It is his word. Given the life-death level of this I believe that he should have pursued other avenues first.

 

[clevergirl]

No. The government could justify invading your home at any time or throwing you in a prinson at any time in the name of protection if their primary function was protection. You'll notice that Constitution doesn't even use the word police.

'Your friend' does not have the right to be taking innocent people's communications and phone records. If you think they do, then you deserve to lose your rights.

Slow down! My "friend" works in storage I never said he took any one's anything.

Your assertion is a non starter- as part of what we have in way of Constitutional protections, your stated "fear" is ridiculous. We have a military; a police force; firefighters- all employed to "protect" citizens and their property from physical harm- These entities have limited and specific constraints- this is to ensure that all of our personal rights are likewise protected.

Now please move back to the issue at hand.

Snowden had a legal recourse under Whistle Blower laws. He chose instead to steal information that did not belong to him. That's theft. Whether or not he committed espionage remains to be seen. We need to bring him back in order to discover that or not.

Forgetting all the noise for a minute, the government is gathering people's private e-mails and phone records and other data. That is not information that they have a right to collect. Snowden was right to let us know about our tyrannical government. I mean, think about it; even as we speak, the government is categorizing citizens into groups (irrespective of whether a crime has been committed) and using that information accordingly. They have no right to do that. NONE.

Yes, they are gathering and collecting and storing our personal information and communications. Whether or not the PA provides them that legal ability to do so, remains, to be seen. But I digress. Snowden had a legal means to reveal what was happening and he "chose" a route that opens him up for charges of theft and possibly espionage. THAT is an inescapable FACT.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Slow down! My "friend" works in storage I never said he took any one's anything.

Your assertion is a non starter- as part of what we have in way of Constitutional protections, your stated "fear" is ridiculous. We have a military; a police force; firefighters- all employed to "protect" citizens and their property from physical harm- These entities have limited and specific constraints- this is to ensure that all of our personal rights are likewise protected.

Now please move back to the issue at hand.

Snowden had a legal recourse under Whistle Blower laws. He chose instead to steal information that did not belong to him. That's theft. Whether or not he committed espionage remains to be seen. We need to bring him back in order to discover that or not.

Forgetting all the noise for a minute, the government is gathering people's private e-mails and phone records and other data. That is not information that they have a right to collect. Snowden was right to let us know about our tyrannical government. I mean, think about it; even as we speak, the government is categorizing citizens into groups (irrespective of whether a crime has been committed) and using that information accordingly. They have no right to do that. NONE.

Yes, they are gathering and collecting and storing our personal information and communications. Whether or not the PA provides them that legal ability to do so, remains, to be seen. But I digress. Snowden had a legal means to reveal what was happening and he "chose" a route that opens him up for charges of theft and possibly espionage. THAT is an inescapable FACT.

Legally, you're correct. But, not everything that is legal is moral or ethical. When the system becomes so corrupt, it is incumbent upon honorable men and women to come forward even if the law says otherwise.

But, your assertion was that Snowden should be charged and jailed and whatever else is bunk. I'm telling you right now that the person who is worthy of being in a prison cell, now resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500. We should be throwing Snowden a fucking parade.

The system is out of control. Secret charges? Give me a fucking break. This is the U.S.S.R. Though, it's hard to tell otherwise these days.

 

[PratchettFan]

Forgetting all the noise for a minute, the government is gathering people's private e-mails and phone records and other data. That is not information that they have a right to collect. Snowden was right to let us know about our tyrannical government. I mean, think about it; even as we speak, the government is categorizing citizens into groups (irrespective of whether a crime has been committed) and using that information accordingly. They have no right to do that. NONE.

What exactly does "using that information accordingly" mean?

You don't think that there isn't an elite underground that is using this information to their own personal advancement? GROW UP.

I am grown up. Which means I base my opinions upon information, not vague claims. How are they using the information for their personal advancement and who exactly is "they"?

 

[Katzndogz]

The collection of massive amounts of data has nothing to do with national security. It has to do with the use of data mining to influence public opinion. Which is how obama used data mining to win the election.

Obama campaign?s chief data guy gets candid about the data strategy that won the election | VentureBeat

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/m...gital-masterminds-cash-in.html?pagewanted=all

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

What exactly does "using that information accordingly" mean?

You don't think that there isn't an elite underground that is using this information to their own personal advancement? GROW UP.

I am grown up. Which means I base my opinions upon information, not vague claims. How are they using the information for their personal advancement and who exactly is "they"?

Your 'opinions' certainly not based upon the Constitution. Dude. Thousands of power hungry government workers are sifting through all sorts of information. And they do it with virtually no accountability. The potential for abuse is endless. You may prefer to think that they're so noble and wouldn't dare do anything bad to you, but that's because you're a baffoon. I on the other hand, believe in my freedom and Constitutional right to privacy.

Probable cause and warrants are currently a thing of the past in this 'well we got to protect you against terrorism' net.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The collection of massive amounts of data has nothing to do with national security. It has to do with the use of data mining to influence public opinion. Which is how obama used data mining to win the election.

Obama campaign?s chief data guy gets candid about the data strategy that won the election | VentureBeat

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/m...gital-masterminds-cash-in.html?pagewanted=all

I perused that article and I disagree with your premise. Its said the model was quite simple and based upon public info. Plus, the way Obama won was the old fashion way; pay-offs. Romney never had a chance. You can't beat someone who has already bought the votes; much of it with illegal overseas money.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The collection of massive amounts of data has nothing to do with national security. It has to do with the use of data mining to influence public opinion. Which is how obama used data mining to win the election.

Obama campaign?s chief data guy gets candid about the data strategy that won the election | VentureBeat

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/m...gital-masterminds-cash-in.html?pagewanted=all

I perused that article and I disagree with your premise. Its said the model was quite simple and based upon public info. Plus, the way Obama won was the old fashion way; pay-offs. Romney never had a chance. You can't beat someone who has already bought the votes; much of it with illegal overseas money.

But, knowledge is power. And Obama literally has the ability to know everyone's thoughts and strategies. Tell me that's not the ultimate police state!

 

[Avorysuds]

Poor, poor Snowden

Gets to live out his life in an airport

Of course, if he decides to return, we have a nice jail cell for him

And you have become the worst of everything you hate. Good work RW, good work. lol.

 

[numan]

'

He should go to jail for wasting everyone's time.

The government should go to jail, for wasting everyone's time -- and money -- and lives !!!

.