To those calling Snowden a coward...

[aaronleland]

This topic is mainly directed at those who applaud what Snowden did, but want him to face justice. What single bit of good would turning himself in do? Do you think he will be given a fair trial, or will it be a kangaroo court? Is martyrdom more beneficial than him remaining free? If so, who is it more beneficial to? It might make you feel good, but what about the man who may spend the rest of his life in prison? I can't think of a single benefit of Snowden turning himself in.

Whew! I didn't call him a coward, I called him a traitor. We good?

We good.

 

[laughinReaper]

This topic is mainly directed at those who applaud what Snowden did, but want him to face justice. What single bit of good would turning himself in do? Do you think he will be given a fair trial, or will it be a kangaroo court? Is martyrdom more beneficial than him remaining free? If so, who is it more beneficial to? It might make you feel good, but what about the man who may spend the rest of his life in prison? I can't think of a single benefit of Snowden turning himself in.

For telling the people that thier government is spying on them? If it was just that and that alone, I would fight for him to return unscathed. But that's not all he did. He began spouting secret info to countries that aren't really friendly to us. He has four laps tops with sensitive files that may compromise the securtiy of the United States. That makes him a traitor. Snowden would have to be a complete moron to turn himself in because he would never be released as some kind of hero, so yes, you are correct, there is no benefit for him to do so.

 

[aaronleland]

This topic is mainly directed at those who applaud what Snowden did, but want him to face justice. What single bit of good would turning himself in do? Do you think he will be given a fair trial, or will it be a kangaroo court? Is martyrdom more beneficial than him remaining free? If so, who is it more beneficial to? It might make you feel good, but what about the man who may spend the rest of his life in prison? I can't think of a single benefit of Snowden turning himself in.

For telling the people that thier government is spying on them? If it was just that and that alone, I would fight for him to return unscathed. But that's not all he did. He began spouting secret info to countries that aren't really friendly to us. He has four laps tops with sensitive files that may compromise the securtiy of the United States. That makes him a traitor. Snowden would have to be a complete moron to turn himself in because he would never be released as some kind of hero, so yes, you are correct, there is no benefit for him to do so.

As far as I know, all he told any other country was that we were spying on them. Every country already knew that. What the governments of those countries is displaying is faux outrage. It happens every time we or another country get caught spying. It's all show. Every developed country with the capabilities is spying on each other.

 

[S.J.]

He should not turn himself in, that would be stupid. He may not be a hero but what he did, needed to be done and I'm glad he blew the whistle on the tyrant in the W.H.

Don't kid yourself. Most of the tools in DC had no problem with this shit no matter which side they were on. Spying didn't start with Obama and it wont end with him.

I know, but it always helps when somebody speaks up. Maybe it will inspire others to take action.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This topic is mainly directed at those who applaud what Snowden did, but want him to face justice. What single bit of good would turning himself in do? Do you think he will be given a fair trial, or will it be a kangaroo court? Is martyrdom more beneficial than him remaining free? If so, who is it more beneficial to? It might make you feel good, but what about the man who may spend the rest of his life in prison? I can't think of a single benefit of Snowden turning himself in.

Snowden’s act of alleged espionage is what was cowardly, not necessarily his flight from justice.

Whether he turns himself in or not really isn’t the issue.

This is why I directed the topic towards those who applaud his espionage, but not his flight. It's easier to understand the argument coming from those who didn't agree with his leaks in the first place. It seems like others want to turn him into a martyr, which doesn't seem to benefit their cause.

There’s no way their ‘cause’ can be ‘benefited.’

Indeed, there is no ‘cause’ to begin with.

The surveillance programs are legal and Constitutional, there was no ‘wrongdoing’ to ‘reveal.’

Snowden the ‘hero’ is a partisan contrivance, a naïve manifestation of schoolboy politics, and a pathetic fantasy of the far right, who are either clueless or indifferent to the potential harm Snowden has caused his Nation.

 

[MikeK]

This topic is mainly directed at those who applaud what Snowden did, but want him to face justice. What single bit of good would turning himself in do? Do you think he will be given a fair trial, or will it be a kangaroo court? Is martyrdom more beneficial than him remaining free? If so, who is it more beneficial to? It might make you feel good, but what about the man who may spend the rest of his life in prison? I can't think of a single benefit of Snowden turning himself in.

I agree.

I recently watched PBS Frontline's coverage of both Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. My impression is Assange is a sleazy character whose motivation is material gain and Manning is a fellow with a lot of psychological problems.

But I am aware of no possible motivation for Snowden's action other than a compulsive wish to expose what he believes is government wrongdoing on a massive scale. Until I learn different I will regard Edward Snowden as an exceptional American patriot in the model of Daniel Ellsberg.

 

[S.J.]

If Snowden had exposed Bush for spying, the liberal fucks on this site would be calling him a hero, but because he exposed Obama, he's a traitor. Fucking hypocrites.

 

[Gracie]

This topic is mainly directed at those who applaud what Snowden did, but want him to face justice. What single bit of good would turning himself in do? Do you think he will be given a fair trial, or will it be a kangaroo court? Is martyrdom more beneficial than him remaining free? If so, who is it more beneficial to? It might make you feel good, but what about the man who may spend the rest of his life in prison? I can't think of a single benefit of Snowden turning himself in.

For telling the people that thier government is spying on them? If it was just that and that alone, I would fight for him to return unscathed. But that's not all he did. He began spouting secret info to countries that aren't really friendly to us. He has four laps tops with sensitive files that may compromise the securtiy of the United States. That makes him a traitor. Snowden would have to be a complete moron to turn himself in because he would never be released as some kind of hero, so yes, you are correct, there is no benefit for him to do so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What good is the Judiciary, when they are denied access to all the facts?

This is from February 2013...

NEW YORK -- The Supreme Court's Tuesday ruling in a case about warrantless wiretapping, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, could have larger consequences for accountability and post-9/11 counterterrorism measures, including a lawsuit over the government's power to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects.


The court's 5-4 decision held that the journalists and human rights advocates challenging the warrantless wiretapping program first set up under President George W. Bush's administration did not have standing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the parties' fear of being surveilled when the U.S. government targets foreign terrorists was "highly speculative."



Supreme Court's Clapper v. Amnesty International Decision Could Affect Indefinite Detention Lawsuit


​

Just because a court rules in a manner with which you disagree is not cause to impugn the judiciary as a whole.

Courts can only rule on the facts, not unfounded fear, suspicion, or speculation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What good is the Judiciary, when they are denied access to all the facts?

This is from February 2013...

NEW YORK -- The Supreme Court's Tuesday ruling in a case about warrantless wiretapping, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, could have larger consequences for accountability and post-9/11 counterterrorism measures, including a lawsuit over the government's power to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects.


The court's 5-4 decision held that the journalists and human rights advocates challenging the warrantless wiretapping program first set up under President George W. Bush's administration did not have standing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the parties' fear of being surveilled when the U.S. government targets foreign terrorists was "highly speculative."



Supreme Court's Clapper v. Amnesty International Decision Could Affect Indefinite Detention Lawsuit


​

Now Hedges v. Obama will be heard with at least more facts, not all facts, but more...thanks to Snowden.

This case has nothing to do with Snowden, as it concerns the myth propagated by some that the NDAA ‘authorizes’ the government to subject citizens to ‘indefinite detention,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[S.J.]

What good is the Judiciary, when they are denied access to all the facts?

This is from February 2013...

NEW YORK -- The Supreme Court's Tuesday ruling in a case about warrantless wiretapping, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, could have larger consequences for accountability and post-9/11 counterterrorism measures, including a lawsuit over the government's power to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects.


The court's 5-4 decision held that the journalists and human rights advocates challenging the warrantless wiretapping program first set up under President George W. Bush's administration did not have standing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the parties' fear of being surveilled when the U.S. government targets foreign terrorists was "highly speculative."



Supreme Court's Clapper v. Amnesty International Decision Could Affect Indefinite Detention Lawsuit


​

Just because a court rules in a manner with which you disagree is not cause to impugn the judiciary as a whole.

Courts can only rule on the facts, not unfounded fear, suspicion, or speculation.

They didn't exactly rule on the facts in the O.J. murder trail though, did they?

 

[dblack]

If Snowden had exposed Bush for spying, the liberal fucks on this site would be calling him a hero, but because he exposed Obama, he's a traitor. Fucking hypocrites.

Turns the stomach a bit, eh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What good is the Judiciary, when they are denied access to all the facts?

This is from February 2013...

NEW YORK -- The Supreme Court's Tuesday ruling in a case about warrantless wiretapping, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, could have larger consequences for accountability and post-9/11 counterterrorism measures, including a lawsuit over the government's power to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects.


The court's 5-4 decision held that the journalists and human rights advocates challenging the warrantless wiretapping program first set up under President George W. Bush's administration did not have standing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the parties' fear of being surveilled when the U.S. government targets foreign terrorists was "highly speculative."



Supreme Court's Clapper v. Amnesty International Decision Could Affect Indefinite Detention Lawsuit


​

Just because a court rules in a manner with which you disagree is not cause to impugn the judiciary as a whole.

Courts can only rule on the facts, not unfounded fear, suspicion, or speculation.

They didn't exactly rule on the facts in the O.J. murder trail though, did they?

That was a jury, not a court.

But your confusion is consistent with your ignorance, and the fact you’re a tedious partisan hack.

 

[MisterBeale]

It took a lot of courage for Snowden to do what he did. And, one of the things he did was to put himself at the mercy of Public Opinion.

If Public Opinion decides he has done more good than harm, he will ultimately be a free man and he will be regarded as a hero.

He has badly embarrassed the Government...the one that has all of our e-mails and phone calls stored for future use as needed...and they are condemning him mercilessly on our behalf.

But, I don't trust the Government.

So, to me, Snowden's a hero.

Agreed. There is a thread here about him isn't there? So to say he accomplished nothing would be hogwash. People now know what our government is doing, they care. The other day, I heard a segment on PBS on how to reduce your information footprint. People care now.

I knew this information he revealed before he did what he did, but at least now it is in the news, now people care. . . . so he won. By doing what he did, the average middle class American once again CARES about their privacy. They leave their correspondence in their drafts, they try to DO something to circumvent and make it more difficult for big brother. He has raised awareness.

 

[S.J.]

Just because a court rules in a manner with which you disagree is not cause to impugn the judiciary as a whole.

Courts can only rule on the facts, not unfounded fear, suspicion, or speculation.

They didn't exactly rule on the facts in the O.J. murder trail though, did they?

That was a jury, not a court.

But your confusion is consistent with your ignorance, and the fact you’re a tedious partisan hack.

Same principal applies. Courts can be every bit as partisan as juries.

 

[Gracie]

If Snowden had exposed Bush for spying, the liberal fucks on this site would be calling him a hero, but because he exposed Obama, he's a traitor. Fucking hypocrites.

Wrong, dear. He would still be a traitor to the USA...it doesn't really matter which president is in office.

 

[Missourian]

What good is the Judiciary, when they are denied access to all the facts?

This is from February 2013...

NEW YORK -- The Supreme Court's Tuesday ruling in a case about warrantless wiretapping, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, could have larger consequences for accountability and post-9/11 counterterrorism measures, including a lawsuit over the government's power to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects.


The court's 5-4 decision held that the journalists and human rights advocates challenging the warrantless wiretapping program first set up under President George W. Bush's administration did not have standing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the parties' fear of being surveilled when the U.S. government targets foreign terrorists was "highly speculative."



Supreme Court's Clapper v. Amnesty International Decision Could Affect Indefinite Detention Lawsuit


​

Just because a court rules in a manner with which you disagree is not cause to impugn the judiciary as a whole.

Courts can only rule on the facts, not unfounded fear, suspicion, or speculation.

The ruling was they didn't have standing because the government wasn't surveilling them...turns out, the government WAS surveilling them...



Get it?

 

[S.J.]

If Snowden had exposed Bush for spying, the liberal fucks on this site would be calling him a hero, but because he exposed Obama, he's a traitor. Fucking hypocrites.

Wrong, dear. He would still be a traitor to the USA...it doesn't really matter which president is in office.

Some on the right would have called him a traitor but I guarantee the left would have called him a hero.

 

[Politico]

Idiot yes. Coward no.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If Snowden had exposed Bush for spying, the liberal fucks on this site would be calling him a hero, but because he exposed Obama, he's a traitor. Fucking hypocrites.

Wrong, dear. He would still be a traitor to the USA...it doesn't really matter which president is in office.

Some on the right would have called him a traitor but I guarantee the left would have called him a hero.

Wrong...........................

I'm someone that many on this board consider "left", and even though I think that what he did at first may have been good, what he's done after his first reveal may have been good, everything since he's been in Russia have been bad.

Why else would Putin say that he's got to leave?

My personal hope? I'd like to see Snowden get asylum in some South American country and I'd also like to see the CIA or the NSA get ahold of him and bring him back to the U.S. to see his defense.