Treason or Whistle Blower?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rand Paul could have put forth a bill and sought out sponsors to end the paractice he and other radical republicans oppose, now that a Democrat is in the White House. He could have found others of his extreme politics easily in the H. of Rep to also put forth a bill.

Of course Speaker Boehner call Snowden a Traitor as have a number of US Senators. Face it, we are a nation of laws and most members of The Congress believe Snowden committed TREASON. Only radicals believe he is a hero.

Oh no, don't call us radicals.

Congress has no authority over this program, obviously. As evidenced by the failure of Senators Wyden and Udall being able to do anything to stop the program, or even acknowledge that it exists publicly. Rand Paul would be constrained in exactly the same manner. Nor would, according to Congressman Amash, Snowden's actions have been legal had he gone to Senator Paul rather than Glenn Greenwald.

The enabling legislation was passed by the Congress, if I understand the debate correctly.

They're basing, as far as I understand, this action on the Patriot Act, yet nobody, including the principal author of the Patriot Act, ever deemed that it would be used to justify a program of this scope. Of course, anybody could have told them, and many did, that this would necessarily happen, but the point stands. Not only that, but there is apparently a ruling from a Fisa court that is being kept classified regarding this program. So no, Congress has no power over this program. And, again, if they did, Senators Udall and Wyden would have already done something about it, considering their vague warnings that something like this was happening.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rand Paul could have put forth a bill and sought out sponsors to end the paractice he and other radical republicans oppose, now that a Democrat is in the White House. He could have found others of his extreme politics easily in the H. of Rep to also put forth a bill.

Of course Speaker Boehner call Snowden a Traitor as have a number of US Senators. Face it, we are a nation of laws and most members of The Congress believe Snowden committed TREASON. Only radicals believe he is a hero.

Oh no, don't call us radicals.

Congress has no authority over this program, obviously. As evidenced by the failure of Senators Wyden and Udall being able to do anything to stop the program, or even acknowledge that it exists publicly. Rand Paul would be constrained in exactly the same manner. Nor would, according to Congressman Amash, Snowden's actions have been legal had he gone to Senator Paul rather than Glenn Greenwald.

The enabling legislation was passed by the Congress, if I understand the debate correctly.

Clearly you don't

 

[numan]

so you and Kevin believe everything which the Federal does must be done in public for everyone in the world to be privy to and nothing should be secret?

So before June 6, 1944 The Federal Government had a duty to have a press conference to announce the invasion and if they did not an officer in IKE's command would have a duty to tell the news and thus Hitler?

How percipient of you to get to the heart of the matter!

Yes, I consider that everything which the government does must be done in public for everyone in the world to be privy to and that nothing should be secret.

As your example shows, this is not practical until every other government has no secrets. That is why we need an international structure of government that would ensure that the same standards apply to all governments -- and all corporations, for that matter. I look forward to the day when no secrets are able to hidden anywhere in the world.

In my opinion, it is far too late to ensure privacy -- either public or private. Less and less can information be restricted. The genie is out of the bottle.

Those of you who say that laws will protect us from unauthorized access to our private information are either disingenuous or childishly naive. The government and our sinister security apparatus either find a way around the laws -- or ignore the laws altogether.

The reason why the spying in Orwell's 1984 was so terrifying was that the government had total power to spy on the people, but the people had no way to spy on the government.

Total surveillance is far more supportable if everyone can spy on everyone else -- if anything, it should be biased so that the people can spy on all those with wealth and power -- without EXCEPTIONS!!

It would be so satisfying to do to them what they do to us!
.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can we as outside observers determine his guilt or innocense when investigators have not even concluded their investigation yet?

 

[auditor0007]

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

I have no doubt the answer will be offered based on political leaning so give a rational reason for your vote.

No, because his actions do not amount to levying war against the United States, or in adhering or giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States.

By alerting our enemies of our security measures being used to thwart their efforts, Snowden has aided the enemy and is therefore guilty of treason. If his concerns were strictly about the rights of American citizens being violated, he could have gone to the DOJ and/or Congress itself to state his concerns. By going to the press, he gave out information that was classified and was so for good reason.

As far as the outrage from a good percentage of Americans concerning this, would their outrage be less or more if we were hit with a major terrorist attack and it was an attack that could have been thwarted with good intelligence?

 

[dblack]

How can we as outside observers determine his guilt or innocense when investigators have not even concluded their investigation yet?

I'm certainly not taking the discussion as any kind of serious conclusion as to his guilt or innocence. I think it's more like "if the story turns out to be more or less as it's been portrayed thus far ..."

Obviously, a full investigation could reveal something else entirely is going on.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Mustang]

Talk about a PR disaster!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

I have no doubt the answer will be offered based on political leaning so give a rational reason for your vote.

No, because his actions do not amount to levying war against the United States, or in adhering or giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States.

By alerting our enemies of our security measures being used to thwart their efforts, Snowden has aided the enemy and is therefore guilty of treason. If his concerns were strictly about the rights of American citizens being violated, he could have gone to the DOJ and/or Congress itself to state his concerns. By going to the press, he gave out information that was classified and was so for good reason.

As far as the outrage from a good percentage of Americans concerning this, would their outrage be less or more if we were hit with a major terrorist attack and it was an attack that could have been thwarted with good intelligence?

Even the dumbest of terrorists knew that the NSA was spying on phone calls and emails. It was common knowledge. So that claim that he harmed national security measures doesn't hold water. The issue here is the scope of the spying on U.S. citizens, which is really what he revealed.

You mean like the Boston bombings that occurred while this program was in place? This is security theater, not real security.

 

[auditor0007]

The classified information that Snowden revealed was the extent of data collection that the government is doing to the entire American people. The "enemies" Snowden gave aid and comfort to, are the American people. The reason this is classified information is because the government never wanted the people to know what was being done to them. They might object to having such massive data collection by a government driven insane by paranoia.

I agree with your point of view.

But the government have not been "driven insane by paranoia." They are coldly calculating tyrants who are determined to enslave us -- and they have pretty nearly succeeded.

The government (and monopoly capitalists) do certainly want to drive us insane with paranoia -- if our thinking is confused, it makes it much easier for them to control us.
.

The problem is that while the terrorist attack most people think of as being a threat is a group of terrorists detonating a bomb that kills a few hundred people, there are threats so much bigger than that that could collapse our entire economy. Because of the convenience of technology, we are more vulnerable today than ever before. That is not paranoia, it's a fact.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Good luck with that.

 

[auditor0007]

Obama in 2005 said what Obama is doing now is a terrible thing. Why didn't President Obama blow the whistle on what Senator Obama considered an atrocity?

Because he grew up and learned the facts of life when it comes to keeping the US safe. I said that when it came to security, Obama would be no different than Bush as far as these programs go.

 

[Plasmaball]

How can we as outside observers determine his guilt or innocense when investigators have not even concluded their investigation yet?

because we have egos and think we know all.

 

[auditor0007]

No, because his actions do not amount to levying war against the United States, or in adhering or giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States.

By alerting our enemies of our security measures being used to thwart their efforts, Snowden has aided the enemy and is therefore guilty of treason. If his concerns were strictly about the rights of American citizens being violated, he could have gone to the DOJ and/or Congress itself to state his concerns. By going to the press, he gave out information that was classified and was so for good reason.

As far as the outrage from a good percentage of Americans concerning this, would their outrage be less or more if we were hit with a major terrorist attack and it was an attack that could have been thwarted with good intelligence?

Even the dumbest of terrorists knew that the NSA was spying on phone calls and emails. It was common knowledge. So that claim that he harmed national security measures doesn't hold water. The issue here is the scope of the spying on U.S. citizens, which is really what he revealed.

You mean like the Boston bombings that occurred while this program was in place? This is security theater, not real security.

Honestly as much as I am concerned about terrorist bombings, they are trivial to the real threats we face. I really hope that the NSA has their eyes on much more than just trying to catch terrorist bombers. Don't take that to mean I am not concerned about those types of terrorist threats, but the fact is the smaller the attack, the more difficult it is to detect and the more likely it will be successful. That's why Boston happened, because it was a very small operation run by two people.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And as Nuremburg taught us ILLEGAL ORDERS, OUGHT NOT BE FOLLOWED.

That's true. But to equate the extermination of 6 million human beings (Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Children) with today's outrage is beyond hyperbole and into absurdity.

I disagree with you. The data was used to steal the election, that means that one more barrier against tyranny has been removed. The guys lie about everything. When are you going to wake up.

When the black helicopters in your head circle my house.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh no, don't call us radicals.

Congress has no authority over this program, obviously. As evidenced by the failure of Senators Wyden and Udall being able to do anything to stop the program, or even acknowledge that it exists publicly. Rand Paul would be constrained in exactly the same manner. Nor would, according to Congressman Amash, Snowden's actions have been legal had he gone to Senator Paul rather than Glenn Greenwald.

The enabling legislation was passed by the Congress, if I understand the debate correctly.

Clearly you don't

Fuck off Frank. You're dumber than a box of rocks as your 43,000 one-line posts prove.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

By alerting our enemies of our security measures being used to thwart their efforts, Snowden has aided the enemy and is therefore guilty of treason. If his concerns were strictly about the rights of American citizens being violated, he could have gone to the DOJ and/or Congress itself to state his concerns. By going to the press, he gave out information that was classified and was so for good reason.

As far as the outrage from a good percentage of Americans concerning this, would their outrage be less or more if we were hit with a major terrorist attack and it was an attack that could have been thwarted with good intelligence?

Even the dumbest of terrorists knew that the NSA was spying on phone calls and emails. It was common knowledge. So that claim that he harmed national security measures doesn't hold water. The issue here is the scope of the spying on U.S. citizens, which is really what he revealed.

You mean like the Boston bombings that occurred while this program was in place? This is security theater, not real security.

Honestly as much as I am concerned about terrorist bombings, they are trivial to the real threats we face. I really hope that the NSA has their eyes on much more than just trying to catch terrorist bombers. Don't take that to mean I am not concerned about those types of terrorist threats, but the fact is the smaller the attack, the more difficult it is to detect and the more likely it will be successful. That's why Boston happened, because it was a very small operation run by two people.

Regardless, the point remains that all that Snowden revealed was the scope of the spying. The spying itself was common knowledge.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The enabling legislation was passed by the Congress, if I understand the debate correctly.

Clearly you don't

Fuck off Frank. You're dumber than a box of rocks as your 43,000 one-line posts prove.

lol You're not bright enough to light up a cigarette much less a room with thoughtful expression.. Look in the mirror DUMMY.

 

[cereal_killer]

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. -Mark Twain

 

[numan]

How good to know that somewhere in the world there is still a country willing to defend Free Enterprise and personal liberty against the jack-booted control-freaks running the Gulag-state known as the USA.
.