I think that you are conflating two different issues. It's quite possible to disapprove of Snowden's actions without approving of, or defending, the unlawful data collection..
The data collection *was not unlawful.* You people need to get that straight. Disliking it and wanting it stopped is one thing; throiwng out the lie that it was illegal is quite another.
I'm not sure that you are correct, at least in terms of current judgements. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, for example, would probably beg to differ with your assertion, having ruled that the NSA exceeded the boundaries of federal law on data collection.
Snowden is a whistleblower which is very different from being a traitor. The documentary Citizenfour is a great movie that sheds some light onto Snowden as a character and what drove him to do as he did. It is a chilling film and highly recommended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Look at the details of what Snowden actually did, and why, and what impact it has had since it happened. If you do that, you'll stop caring whether you like or respect him (I think I do), stop requesting his murder (really?!) and start being VERY glad he was there to do what he did, at significant personal risk.
Almost didn't follow this post by A.I. as I expected comments to be largely blind vitriol. Pleased to be surprised by reason. :-)
what are you smoking? the courts declared it illegal and the congress is revoking it. thats progress to me.
there is no evidence of so called "damage" to the nation. FUD on.
Not me smoking crack but it's apparently fried your brain. What court justice is in a government "leadership" role? And what congressional member in a "leadership" role has declared Snowdon a whistleblower? Of course, none! Because no one outside of a very few high-ranking government employees in leadership roles have the access to read the reports detailing program benefits and damage assessments.
Hell, every one of those well-placed people from the president down (including the majority and minority leaders of both houses of congress) are fighting vigorously for continuation of NSA's data-gathering programs.
They have all concluded that the benefits outweigh the slight loss of civil liberties.
People you are listening to don't have the access to make an intelligent decision on the matter.
what are you smoking? the courts declared it illegal and the congress is revoking it. thats progress to me.
there is no evidence of so called "damage" to the nation. FUD on.
Not me smoking crack but it's apparently fried your brain. What court justice is in a government "leadership" role? And what congressional member in a "leadership" role has declared Snowdon a whistleblower? Of course, none! Because no one outside of a very few high-ranking government employees in leadership roles have the access to read the reports detailing program benefits and damage assessments.
Hell, every one of those well-placed people from the president down (including the majority and minority leaders of both houses of congress) are fighting vigorously for continuation of NSA's data-gathering programs.
They have all concluded that the benefits outweigh the slight loss of civil liberties.
People you are listening to don't have the access to make an intelligent decision on the matter.
There is part of the problem in a nutshell - many of those who oppose programs such as these are unaware of the benefits, and unaware of the risks, and end up guessing that the benefits are small and the risks, in terms of loss of privacy, are high. Unfortunately it's a bit of a Catch 22 situation. Clandestine operations don't work nearly as well if they are advertised, either how they work or what they produce. But, at some point, when the targets of the operation are the citizens of the country conducting it, infringement of personal freedom and privacy do become enough of an issue that it would seem necessary to seek public support.
NONE of you people can say how leak after leak after leak after leak has anything to do with your Fourth Amendment rights, and you know it, so you gloss over it by moving the goal posts in deference to your phony messiah.
The collection of our communications IS a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.
But note that communications and communications metadata are arguably not the same, which means that it probably comes down to interpretation, and is part of the confusion. I'm pretty sure that the Fourth Amendment had little to say about metadata.
We have only seen 1% of the documents Snowden released. The other 99% contains classified information that can significantly harm our nation. When a rag like The Guardian decides that they shouldn't release 99% of what was disclosed, you know it's harmful information.
Half the people in this thread would apparently forgive James Holmes for the theater murders if he pulled a victim from a car crash on the way to the theater.
Anyone who didn't already assume that these surveillance programs were in place in the first place, is ignorant. It's great to have specifics, and there would be a "hero" argument for snowden if he hadn't spent so much energy in harming this country on top of the whistleblowing.
Let's be clear: chime in if you approve of Snowden's disclosure of classified US military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures. It would be good for the NSA to have a bead on who some other potential traitors might be.
He's a hero, not a traitor. If you had any sense you would reserve your scorn for the people in your government who have violated your constitutional rights and have committed acts of torture.
We have only seen 1% of the documents Snowden released. The other 99% contains classified information that can significantly harm our nation. When a rag like The Guardian decides that they shouldn't release 99% of what was disclosed, you know it's harmful information.
Half the people in this thread would apparently forgive James Holmes for the theater murders if he pulled a victim from a car crash on the way to the theater.
Anyone who didn't already assume that these surveillance programs were in place in the first place, is ignorant. It's great to have specifics, and there would be a "hero" argument for snowden if he hadn't spent so much energy in harming this country on top of the whistleblowing.
Let's be clear: chime in if you approve of Snowden's disclosure of classified US military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures. It would be good for the NSA to have a bead on who some other potential traitors might be.
No doubt you consider Fox News a superior news source.
He's a hero, not a traitor. If you had any sense you would reserve your scorn for the people in your government who have violated your constitutional rights and have committed acts of torture.
I really have to disagree - he is nothing at all resembling a hero, even if he did usefully expose some overreaching activities. If you knew more detail of his actions I suspect that you might modify your viewpoint.
I really have to disagree - he is nothing at all resembling a hero, even if he did usefully expose some overreaching activities. If you knew more detail of his actions I suspect that you might modify your viewpoint.
He gave up a nice life making a nice living to expose what he felt (and many agree) was a crime being committed upon American citizens by their own government. It is only because of what he did that the American public is finally realizing that those who have warned about these acts were not tinfoil hat wearing lunatics after all. This makes him a hero in my book, and it's a lot more than I can say for the spineless politicians in Washington who have abdicated their duty to their constituents and our constitution.
It is people like you that pave the way for authoritarian governments to develop and turn democracies into police states.
Let's be clear: chime in if you approve of Snowden's disclosure of classified US military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures. It would be good for the NSA to have a bead on who some other potential traitors might be.
More ignorance. I despise no entertainment source more than Faux News. I get my news from Fark.com, mostly.
I am a patriot though. That conservative bs gets on my nerves though, just as much as the liberal bs.
People who run around calling themselves patriots seldom understand the true meaning of the word. Patriotism does not mean marching in goose step, respecting authority, and doing what you're told. Patriotism is fighting for the values your country stands for, even (especially) when that means fighting those within your own government who have betrayed those values. Hitler, Stalin, Mao... all homicidal despots who committed atrocities under the banner of patriotism.
So we have your vote on releasing classified military info?
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
I really have to disagree - he is nothing at all resembling a hero, even if he did usefully expose some overreaching activities. If you knew more detail of his actions I suspect that you might modify your viewpoint.
He gave up a nice life making a nice living to expose what he felt (and many agree) was a crime being committed upon American citizens by their own government. It is only because of what he did that the American public is finally realizing that those who have warned about these acts were not tinfoil hat wearing lunatics after all. This makes him a hero in my book, and it's a lot more than I can say for the spineless politicians in Washington who have abdicated their duty to their constituents and our constitution.
It is people like you that pave the way for authoritarian governments to develop and turn democracies into police states.
Well thanks for the label. As I said - you are making judgements on very limited information, and have bought into his explanation for his actions, presumably because it aligns well with your government conspiracy theories. Had he taken the conventional whistleblower route then I would have no issues at all. What he did bore no resemblance to that, far exceeded what was needed even had he concluded that the regular whistleblower mechanism was not to be trusted, and ended up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
So we have your vote on releasing classified military info?
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
The US Government is not going to compound the damage done by the leaks by revealing the extent and detail of that damage. You cannot read anything into the lack of that information.
Comments
I think that you are conflating two different issues. It's quite possible to disapprove of Snowden's actions without approving of, or defending, the unlawful data collection..
The data collection *was not unlawful.* You people need to get that straight. Disliking it and wanting it stopped is one thing; throiwng out the lie that it was illegal is quite another.
I'm not sure that you are correct, at least in terms of current judgements. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, for example, would probably beg to differ with your assertion, having ruled that the NSA exceeded the boundaries of federal law on data collection.
Snowden is a whistleblower which is very different from being a traitor. The documentary Citizenfour is a great movie that sheds some light onto Snowden as a character and what drove him to do as he did. It is a chilling film and highly recommended.
Look at the details of what Snowden actually did, and why, and what impact it has had since it happened. If you do that, you'll stop caring whether you like or respect him (I think I do), stop requesting his murder (really?!) and start being VERY glad he was there to do what he did, at significant personal risk.
Almost didn't follow this post by A.I. as I expected comments to be largely blind vitriol. Pleased to be surprised by reason. :-)
Not me smoking crack but it's apparently fried your brain. What court justice is in a government "leadership" role? And what congressional member in a "leadership" role has declared Snowdon a whistleblower? Of course, none! Because no one outside of a very few high-ranking government employees in leadership roles have the access to read the reports detailing program benefits and damage assessments.
Hell, every one of those well-placed people from the president down (including the majority and minority leaders of both houses of congress) are fighting vigorously for continuation of NSA's data-gathering programs.
They have all concluded that the benefits outweigh the slight loss of civil liberties.
People you are listening to don't have the access to make an intelligent decision on the matter.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/17/apple_hosed_boffins_drop_0day_mac_ios_research_blitzkrieg/
I'm an Apple fan and love Tim Cook, but six months is an awfully long time.
what are you smoking? the courts declared it illegal and the congress is revoking it. thats progress to me.
there is no evidence of so called "damage" to the nation. FUD on.
Not me smoking crack but it's apparently fried your brain. What court justice is in a government "leadership" role? And what congressional member in a "leadership" role has declared Snowdon a whistleblower? Of course, none! Because no one outside of a very few high-ranking government employees in leadership roles have the access to read the reports detailing program benefits and damage assessments.
Hell, every one of those well-placed people from the president down (including the majority and minority leaders of both houses of congress) are fighting vigorously for continuation of NSA's data-gathering programs.
They have all concluded that the benefits outweigh the slight loss of civil liberties.
People you are listening to don't have the access to make an intelligent decision on the matter.
There is part of the problem in a nutshell - many of those who oppose programs such as these are unaware of the benefits, and unaware of the risks, and end up guessing that the benefits are small and the risks, in terms of loss of privacy, are high. Unfortunately it's a bit of a Catch 22 situation. Clandestine operations don't work nearly as well if they are advertised, either how they work or what they produce. But, at some point, when the targets of the operation are the citizens of the country conducting it, infringement of personal freedom and privacy do become enough of an issue that it would seem necessary to seek public support.
NONE of you people can say how leak after leak after leak after leak has anything to do with your Fourth Amendment rights, and you know it, so you gloss over it by moving the goal posts in deference to your phony messiah.
The collection of our communications IS a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.
But note that communications and communications metadata are arguably not the same, which means that it probably comes down to interpretation, and is part of the confusion. I'm pretty sure that the Fourth Amendment had little to say about metadata.
We have only seen 1% of the documents Snowden released. The other 99% contains classified information that can significantly harm our nation. When a rag like The Guardian decides that they shouldn't release 99% of what was disclosed, you know it's harmful information.
Half the people in this thread would apparently forgive James Holmes for the theater murders if he pulled a victim from a car crash on the way to the theater.
Anyone who didn't already assume that these surveillance programs were in place in the first place, is ignorant. It's great to have specifics, and there would be a "hero" argument for snowden if he hadn't spent so much energy in harming this country on top of the whistleblowing.
Let's be clear: chime in if you approve of Snowden's disclosure of classified US military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures. It would be good for the NSA to have a bead on who some other potential traitors might be.
I wonder how come this traitor is still alive ?
He's a hero, not a traitor. If you had any sense you would reserve your scorn for the people in your government who have violated your constitutional rights and have committed acts of torture.
We have only seen 1% of the documents Snowden released. The other 99% contains classified information that can significantly harm our nation. When a rag like The Guardian decides that they shouldn't release 99% of what was disclosed, you know it's harmful information.
Half the people in this thread would apparently forgive James Holmes for the theater murders if he pulled a victim from a car crash on the way to the theater.
Anyone who didn't already assume that these surveillance programs were in place in the first place, is ignorant. It's great to have specifics, and there would be a "hero" argument for snowden if he hadn't spent so much energy in harming this country on top of the whistleblowing.
Let's be clear: chime in if you approve of Snowden's disclosure of classified US military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures. It would be good for the NSA to have a bead on who some other potential traitors might be.
No doubt you consider Fox News a superior news source.
I wonder how come this traitor is still alive ?
He's a hero, not a traitor. If you had any sense you would reserve your scorn for the people in your government who have violated your constitutional rights and have committed acts of torture.
I really have to disagree - he is nothing at all resembling a hero, even if he did usefully expose some overreaching activities. If you knew more detail of his actions I suspect that you might modify your viewpoint.
I really have to disagree - he is nothing at all resembling a hero, even if he did usefully expose some overreaching activities. If you knew more detail of his actions I suspect that you might modify your viewpoint.
He gave up a nice life making a nice living to expose what he felt (and many agree) was a crime being committed upon American citizens by their own government. It is only because of what he did that the American public is finally realizing that those who have warned about these acts were not tinfoil hat wearing lunatics after all. This makes him a hero in my book, and it's a lot more than I can say for the spineless politicians in Washington who have abdicated their duty to their constituents and our constitution.
It is people like you that pave the way for authoritarian governments to develop and turn democracies into police states.
Let's be clear: chime in if you approve of Snowden's disclosure of classified US military capabilities, operations, tactics, techniques, and procedures. It would be good for the NSA to have a bead on who some other potential traitors might be.
Spoken like a true Nazi.
No doubt you consider Fox News a superior news source.
More ignorance. I despise no entertainment source more than Faux News. I get my news from Fark.com, mostly.
I am a patriot though. That conservative bs gets on my nerves though, just as much as the liberal bs.
More ignorance. I despise no entertainment source more than Faux News. I get my news from Fark.com, mostly.
I am a patriot though. That conservative bs gets on my nerves though, just as much as the liberal bs.
People who run around calling themselves patriots seldom understand the true meaning of the word. Patriotism does not mean marching in goose step, respecting authority, and doing what you're told. Patriotism is fighting for the values your country stands for, even (especially) when that means fighting those within your own government who have betrayed those values. Hitler, Stalin, Mao... all homicidal despots who committed atrocities under the banner of patriotism.
So we have your vote on releasing classified military info?
So we have your vote on releasing classified military info?
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
I really have to disagree - he is nothing at all resembling a hero, even if he did usefully expose some overreaching activities. If you knew more detail of his actions I suspect that you might modify your viewpoint.
He gave up a nice life making a nice living to expose what he felt (and many agree) was a crime being committed upon American citizens by their own government. It is only because of what he did that the American public is finally realizing that those who have warned about these acts were not tinfoil hat wearing lunatics after all. This makes him a hero in my book, and it's a lot more than I can say for the spineless politicians in Washington who have abdicated their duty to their constituents and our constitution.
It is people like you that pave the way for authoritarian governments to develop and turn democracies into police states.
Well thanks for the label. As I said - you are making judgements on very limited information, and have bought into his explanation for his actions, presumably because it aligns well with your government conspiracy theories. Had he taken the conventional whistleblower route then I would have no issues at all. What he did bore no resemblance to that, far exceeded what was needed even had he concluded that the regular whistleblower mechanism was not to be trusted, and ended up being all about selling himself to foreign governments. The detail of his actions make his motivations very clear, even if you don't know the background.
Great, Godwin already. Well, thanks for playing.
So we have your vote on releasing classified military info?
This was not a reckless disclosure of government secrets. Snowden took great care to work with trustworthy journalists and carefully choose what information to publish. The government has yet to show a single person who has been killed because of the Snowden leaks. The only harm to the US was to its reputation and international standing, and that they can blame on their actions, not the disclosure thereof.
The US Government is not going to compound the damage done by the leaks by revealing the extent and detail of that damage. You cannot read anything into the lack of that information.