Snowden STILL a hero

Three Former NSA Employees Praise Edward Snowden, Corroborate Key Claims

http://www.govexec.com/technology/2...-edward-snowden-corroborate-key-claims/65069/

Snooperman.jpg
 
Red Mule said:
I think some people get as hung up on their reading of the constitution as others get hung up on the bible. Both seem to be open to interpretation. Luckily, the constitution provided instructions. Like who gets to make laws (Congress), who gets to approve them (President), and who get to decide if they are constitutional (SCOTUS). THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM LEGAL OR NOT. I imagine that as long as any responsible and many not so responsible people want to challenge our government's right to spying and secrecy, it will end up in the SCOTUS. Even then, they can screw it up aka: Citizens United.

BUT! I'm pretty sure Judge Napolitano is not the final word of exactly what is constitutional. Now, we can argue (and I'm sure we will) about exactly what SHOULD be legal, and then Nappy's OPINION should get just as much press as yours and mine.

Back to Snowden.... I am pretty sure he had to sign a promise to keep our country's secrets when he applied for his clearance. I know I did. Nobody makes you sign that agreement. And he should have been aware that disclosing those secrets was against the law and he would be punished if he did. There is no doubt (he already admitted to it) that he broke the law. If he believes so strongly it was his duty to disclose this information for public dissemination he should have no problem paying the price. In my opinion he is no hero. A hero would not have run away to hide. Nor do we yet know the entirety of what he released. It could be far more damaging.

I am not really comfortable arguing against transparency of information. And in most things I still believe in it. I am old enough to remember the release of the Pentagon Papers. In that case, the secret information was something only being kept from the American people. The enemy already knew what we were doing!

Today's challenge is dealing with criminals and terrorists, I know they will use our freedom of information against us with terrible consequences. Given a choice of aiding and abetting our enemies or trusting our government to not abuse private information, I'll pick the latter. That is not to say that we should not punish anyone working for our government if they abuse that trust. Including Mr. Snowden.
Click to expand...

I like your post, even though I don't believe the Gov and you have anything to do with each other.

What is more important? Snowdens interpretation of the Constitution, or the Governments? It doesn't matter because what matters is that the people know what we are paying for. Otherwise, what do we vote for.
 
government should have no power unless Corporations control it...............................some would answer..........lol........first day politics.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
??...why would having no objection to either Bush or Obama gathering data on which phones have communicated with which phones make me a hypocrite?.....oh wait, you spoke out of ignorance again, didn't you.......
Click to expand...
I did, for once you are correct, I figured calling you a hypocrite was the easiest way to get you to state your position, that way I did not have to go back and look for where you might have previously stated it.
 
Jarod said:
I did, for once you are correct, I figured calling you a hypocrite was the easiest way to get you to state your position, that way I did not have to go back and look for where you might have previously stated it.
Click to expand...

so you mean you called me a hypocrite because you 1) hadn't been paying any attention to what I said when I said it and 2) you were lazy and 3) you were dishonest.......ignorant, lazy and dishonest?......why didn't you just say "because I'm a liberal" and be done with it......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you mean you called me a hypocrite because you 1) hadn't been paying any attention to what I said when I said it and 2) you were lazy and 3) you were dishonest.......ignorant, lazy and dishonest?......why didn't you just say "because I'm a liberal" and be done with it......
Click to expand...

I was not dishonest, but ignorant and lazy. It was the easiest way to fix the ignorance.

I do respect your integrity for your consistency on the issue, unlike many of your brethren. I would respect it even more if you would acknowledge that there is a serious and important difference between collecting data about phone calls v. listening into phone calls... even if you don't have a problem with ether.
 
Jarod said:
I do respect your integrity for your consistency on the issue
Click to expand...

if you had some I would respect yours too......

if you would acknowledge that there is a serious and important difference between collecting data about phone calls v. listening into phone calls
Click to expand...

of course there is a difference.....if the listening is actually in violation of existing law.....unfortunately for your argument, that didn't happen.....
 
Howey said:
We're getting a clearer picture of how you earned that BCD. Snowden is a coward who spilled the beans and ran behind Mama China's skirt to hide.
Click to expand...

The act of challenging authority is not something that requires a defense. Howey, as someone who touts the word "democrat", you should be of the mindset that a country supposedly run by the people should not be keeping secrets from them. Obviously that word is just a marketing slogan for you, who has the gall to condemn whistle blowers, while defending a country that alienates itself from the public.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if you had some I would respect yours too......



of course there is a difference.....if the listening is actually in violation of existing law.....unfortunately for your argument, that didn't happen.....
Click to expand...

So all that matters to you is if they did not break the law. Are your ethics based on law? I personally believe very strongly that one can follow the law while still being unethical.
 
Jarod said:
So all that matters to you is if they did not break the law. Are your ethics based on law? I personally believe very strongly that one can follow the law while still being unethical.
Click to expand...

doesn't bother you when someone is killing their unborn child but you object when someone is listening to a suicide bomber getting instructions from Iran......understood.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top