Treason or Whistle Blower?

[Wry Catcher]

Just like Senators Wyden and Udall did?

Regardless, let's assume you're right, what difference would it make? Let's assume Rand Paul gets the information from Snowden and goes public, which his Senate colleagues were not allowed to do, what's the difference from Snowden going public himself?

Some people step up for their beliefs, others simply talk and talk and talk.

Ok, that has nothing to do with my post. Let's try again.

-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?

-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?

My point being Rand Paul is all talk and a classic demagogue. Beyond that we don't know where in the process the Congress may have been 'distraught' over the project. I suspect Congress, in general, wanted to keep America safe (some, like Rand Paul might put their ambition over the good for the nation) and decided the means might have been extreme but the end without the program was too awful to ignore. I suspect the safe guards to civil liberty were also detailed to those in the know. BTW, NSA must be circumspect, as such I doubt Rand Paul would have gotten a call back.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one working through channels would have been able to do anything. We would never have known about PRISM, or the NSA's secret operation against Americans called Boundless Informant.

Nor would those building pressure cooker's and planning the next blast. Then you will blame Obama and the Democrats for not keeping us safe. Remember the "chatter" which existed before 9-11, what if Prism had been in effect in August of 2001?

How safe did this program keep us from the first set of pressure cookers?

In 2001 they didn't need PRISM, the military already knew, they just couldn't tell anyone because of Jamie Gorelick's wall.

In 2013, the authorities were well aware of the Tsarnaev brothers, they had been warned by the Russians. But, turning the power of the government on foreigners isn't the goal of PRISM, or Boundless Informant, it's using that power against ordinary citizens.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Was that ever a question before?

Was what ever a question before?

What the government has become.

None of this is new, and that's probably the biggest scandal. The Progressives got elected on being the "adults in charge" and using "government as a force of good." Yeah, not so much actually. The only reason they are worse is because they want to expand government intervention while keeping the authoritarian racket.

For some people, yes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama should be impeached for failing to to uphold the Constitution

Is it now unconstitutional to enforce a law punishing people for revealing state secrets who have taken oaths to not reveal state secrets?

What state secrets?

That the government is acting like a Tyrannical dictatorship

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The NSA didn't stop the boston tragedy despite all of the red flags and warnings that were popping up. I have no confidence that the NSA can stop deliberate acts of terrorism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Some people step up for their beliefs, others simply talk and talk and talk.

Ok, that has nothing to do with my post. Let's try again.

-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?

-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?

My point being Rand Paul is all talk and a classic demagogue. Beyond that we don't know where in the process the Congress may have been 'distraught' over the project. I suspect Congress, in general, wanted to keep America safe (some, like Rand Paul might put their ambition over the good for the nation) and decided the means might have been extreme but the end without the program was too awful to ignore. I suspect the safe guards to civil liberty were also detailed to those in the know. BTW, NSA must be circumspect, as such I doubt Rand Paul would have gotten a call back.

Ok, but you're not addressing the issue at hand. You said, "He [Rand Paul] could stand before the American People and AQ, telling the world what the NSA was doing."

So answer the questions:

-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?

-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?

If you want to remove Rand Paul from the hypothetical and substitute him for a Senator of your choosing then feel free. I only use Rand Paul because somebody else brought him up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nor would those building pressure cooker's and planning the next blast. Then you will blame Obama and the Democrats for not keeping us safe. Remember the "chatter" which existed before 9-11, what if Prism had been in effect in August of 2001?

How safe did this program keep us from the first set of pressure cookers?

In 2001 they didn't need PRISM, the military already knew, they just couldn't tell anyone because of Jamie Gorelick's wall.

In 2013, the authorities were well aware of the Tsarnaev brothers, they had been warned by the Russians. But, turning the power of the government on foreigners isn't the goal of PRISM, or Boundless Informant, it's using that power against ordinary citizens.

Which is how we know this is all just security theater.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some people step up for their beliefs, others simply talk and talk and talk.

Ok, that has nothing to do with my post. Let's try again.

-- What could Senator Rand Paul, or any Senator really, have done differently, had Snowden gone to him rather than the Guardian, than Senators Wyden and Udall who were not permitted to discuss the program publicly?

-- What difference would it have made had it been Senator Rand Paul putting this information out, after having hypothetically received it from Edward Snowden, rather than Snowden himself?

My point being Rand Paul is all talk and a classic demagogue. Beyond that we don't know where in the process the Congress may have been 'distraught' over the project. I suspect Congress, in general, wanted to keep America safe (some, like Rand Paul might put their ambition over the good for the nation) and decided the means might have been extreme but the end without the program was too awful to ignore. I suspect the safe guards to civil liberty were also detailed to those in the know. BTW, NSA must be circumspect, as such I doubt Rand Paul would have gotten a call back.

Violating the 4th Amendment is "For the good of the nation" What a sick, sick, sick fuck you are

Progressives begging the government to stomp them under the jackboot

 

[dblack]

How safe did this program keep us from the first set of pressure cookers?

In 2001 they didn't need PRISM, the military already knew, they just couldn't tell anyone because of Jamie Gorelick's wall.

In 2013, the authorities were well aware of the Tsarnaev brothers, they had been warned by the Russians. But, turning the power of the government on foreigners isn't the goal of PRISM, or Boundless Informant, it's using that power against ordinary citizens.

Which is how we know this is all just security theater.

Sadly, it's more than theater. It opens up the door to real tyranny, as well as being monumental waste of effort and money.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government has no interest in keeping America safe from foreign terrorism. The interest that the government has is in keeping itself safe from America.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, wasn't caught by surveillance or data mining. Not even when his own father called the state department and told them what his son was going to do.

The Tsarnaev brothers weren't caught by data mining, even when Russia told our authorities what danger they presented.

The rest of the failed attempts at blowing something up, like the Times Square bomber weren't caught by superior intelligence but because these terrorists were just incompetent. The intelligence network as vast as it is, isn't directed at foreign terrorists but ordinary Americans. Data mining won the presidency for obama, with the right data mining techniques, the government can basically do anything it wants.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't know enough about him or what he leaked to make an informed decision.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If he's convicted of Treason, every Militia from Texas to New York (yes we exist in New York) will recognize we are living under a Tyranny and resort to the example of Athens, Tennessee, 1946.

No they won't. I disagree with it, but he will be convicted of treason, as any administration would do. And the backwoods redneck militias will continue to post on message boards about how tyrannical the government is, then proceed to beat their wives for forgetting the mustard on their sandwiches.

So many intolerant statements from the party of love and tolerance

 

[cereal_killer]

no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes

I disagree with your last sentence. The type of leaks and motives behind leaking them say otherwise.

 

[asterism]

no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes

Whistleblowers don't preen about and then hide and that's exactly what this guy did. There are many, many ways he could have raised grievances to stop a wrong and it appears he didn't use any of them.

 

[Pop23]

no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes

Whistleblowers don't preen about and then hide and that's exactly what this guy did. There are many, many ways he could have raised grievances to stop a wrong and it appears he didn't use any of them.

Name them? And remember this is an administration that chooses who wins and who loses. Take it to a Senator or Congressman and face the very real possibility that the people who have printing presses printing money 24/7 might distribute a few minutes of that run to have you silenced.

This administration, and we only know a few of the stories so far, has givin Farmers information to environmental radicals, tea party information to leftist groups and likely more.

We have obamacare about to glean health information from hundreds of millions of people but we are to believe that it all will be held IN STRICT CONFIDENCE, Like the Farmers and the Tea Party members were assured?

All the information gathered by this is no more safe than that info gathered by EPA or the IRS.

He was both a Patriot and a Criminal, but like Cereal-Killer pointed out, some of our greatest American hero's fall into the same category.

 

[Wry Catcher]

no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes

Other than General Arnold (Old Ben) I don't recall Washington, Franklin or Jefferson cutting and running to our adversary. Maybe I missed the history redo by the USMB's Minister of Truth, CrusaderFrank or others who see the history they want to see.

 

[peach174]

The government has no interest in keeping America safe from foreign terrorism. The interest that the government has is in keeping itself safe from America.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, wasn't caught by surveillance or data mining. Not even when his own father called the state department and told them what his son was going to do.

The Tsarnaev brothers weren't caught by data mining, even when Russia told our authorities what danger they presented.

The rest of the failed attempts at blowing something up, like the Times Square bomber weren't caught by superior intelligence but because these terrorists were just incompetent. The intelligence network as vast as it is, isn't directed at foreign terrorists but ordinary Americans. Data mining won the presidency for obama, with the right data mining techniques, the government can basically do anything it wants.

Yep!
They used it (Data mining) to get Elliot Spitzer, Gen. Patraeus, Gen. John Allen, and the Fox News correspondent, the Tea Party.
It is going to be used by our Government for anyone deemed in opposition, to progressive ideology.
If it really was being used for Terrorists they would have gotten them.
No this data mining is for censorship and control of Americans.
It violates our 4th Amendment big time.

 

[Pop23]

no he should not......George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "traitors" as well. Some enemies of the state are friends of the people. Whistleblowers are heroes

Other than General Arnold (Old Ben) I don't recall Washington, Franklin or Jefferson cutting and running to our adversary. Maybe I missed the history redo by the USMB's Minister of Truth, CrusaderFrank or others who see the history they want to see.

Lol, who exactly do you think we[/B] we're at the time?

Clue: British subjects

So Washington, Franklin and Jefferson did run to the adversary, that being the Treasonist rebels.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What would be due diligence in protecting our country from terrorist threats?

48 of you believe what is in effect today is a greater threat to liberty than what occurred on 9-11. I don't. Since 9-11 I've -as have many of you - waited in long lines at airports and border crossings; had my body scanned and backpacked searched at ball parks and was patted down with 50,000 others on Sundays when the Niners play. Of course such is a minor loss of privacy when the consequences of a terror attack frame them, but the explanation of how the NSA is protecting us seems to me to be less intrusive than the everyday inconveniences at Airports, museums,sporting events, public building, etc.

This entire brouhaha seems more in line with the birthers and the dozens of other false outrages to flood the INTERNET for since August of 2008. I wonder why Donald Trump hasn't tried to jump on the bandwagon?