Conquer Club

He's called a "traitor"

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:13 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, this traitor was aiding the enemy. The enemy being the rights of the American people, and he sold out the government.

Image


What Snowden did is not responsible whistleblowing. Whistleblower laws, in this case, would protect executive branch employees for reporting this to Congress. Leaking a report to the press at large is not the same as whistleblowing, and it is a gross negligence of his duties.


Feel the same way about Daniel Ellesburg and the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war?
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Night Strike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:13 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, this traitor was aiding the enemy. The enemy being the rights of the American people, and he sold out the government.

Image


What Snowden did is not responsible whistleblowing. Whistleblower laws, in this case, would protect executive branch employees for reporting this to, say, Congress. Leaking a report to the press at large is not the same as whistleblowing, and it is a gross negligence of his duties.


Why is Congress the only ones with the "authority" to receive whistleblowing reports? Remember, we're told that all of Congress knew about these programs, yet they're banned from talking about it publicly. How can there be accountable whistleblowing when the ones who "oversee" the executive branch are gagged by the same executive branch that determines whether or not something is classified?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:16 pm

Orwell wrote:Edward Snowden is most definitely NOT a traitor to me.

He is protecting our Fourth Amendment rights. Because we have a right to know what data our government is collecting on us.

If we, as a society, cannot fight extremists and terrorism with reason and due process, we lose - we lose what we stand for.


BOOM!

=D> =D>
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:17 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Why is Congress the only ones with the "authority" to receive whistleblowing reports? Remember, we're told that all of Congress knew about these programs, yet they're banned from talking about it publicly. How can there be accountable whistleblowing when the ones who "oversee" the executive branch are gagged by the same executive branch that determines whether or not something is classified?


Let's ask Night Strike...

Night Strike wrote:Well, considering it's the executive branch's job to investigate crimes, yet Obama puts Holder in charge of investigating himself, obviously an outside party needs to become involved. Plus, Congressional oversight of the executive branch is also their job. The executive branch doesn't have unlimited power once a law is passed by Congress.


The point here is that if the executive branch is actually doing something illegal, then Congress has the right to initiative an investigation. If Snowden was whistleblowing on an activity that he just didn't like, but isn't expressly unconstitutional or illegal, then Congress doesn't have to do anything, and it doesn't make Snowden a hero just for speaking his mind.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:24 pm

There is still a lot more to the story. Yes, he broke the law and went against confidentiality statements. But I have to ask ya, if you signed a confidentiality statement, and things started going further and further into gray areas, and the person who requested you sign it eventually asked you to kill somebody, would you say something? Do you think they wouldn't hold the fear over your head that you have broke the law for them in the past in order to keep you owned? Or would you keep your word to a murderer? Are you sure you can trust the person you think you would need to tell?

I finally found this interview I saw yesterday. This guy spent a lot of time with Snowden over the last 3 weeks, maybe the only one who did. He answered a lot of important questions, I only hope they aren't edited out of this clip.

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/1 ... tivations/
Last edited by Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:32 pm

Phatscotty wrote:There is still a lot more to the story. Yes, he broke the law and went against confidentiality statements. But I have to ask ya, if you signed a confidentiality statement, and things started going further and further into gray areas, and the person who requested you sign it eventually asked you to kill somebody, would you say something? Do you think they wouldn't hold the fear over your head that you have broke the law for them in the past in order to keep you owned? Or would you keep your word to a murderer? Are you sure you can trust the person you think you would need to tell?


I trust members of Congress a lot more than I trust Fox News.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:36 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:There is still a lot more to the story. Yes, he broke the law and went against confidentiality statements. But I have to ask ya, if you signed a confidentiality statement, and things started going further and further into gray areas, and the person who requested you sign it eventually asked you to kill somebody, would you say something? Do you think they wouldn't hold the fear over your head that you have broke the law for them in the past in order to keep you owned? Or would you keep your word to a murderer? Are you sure you can trust the person you think you would need to tell?


I trust members of Congress a lot more than I trust Fox News.


FOX news???

:-s
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:36 pm

User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:42 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:There is still a lot more to the story. Yes, he broke the law and went against confidentiality statements. But I have to ask ya, if you signed a confidentiality statement, and things started going further and further into gray areas, and the person who requested you sign it eventually asked you to kill somebody, would you say something? Do you think they wouldn't hold the fear over your head that you have broke the law for them in the past in order to keep you owned? Or would you keep your word to a murderer? Are you sure you can trust the person you think you would need to tell?


I trust members of Congress a lot more than I trust Fox News.


FOX news???

:-s


With the utter zeal Congress has had for investigating the executive branch lately, I wouldn't have had much doubt that Congressional Republicans would be all over me if I reported this to them.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:49 pm

okay then, Congress is kinda blaming this guy, and not blaming the executive for anything though, so I'm not sure where you are going with this....

Anyways, check out Ellesburg. I'm confident you can relate completely to what he did during Vietnam, and then put this whistleblower story in context.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst who, while employed by the RAND Corporation, precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. He was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006. He is also known for a fundamental contribution to decision theory, the Ellsberg paradox.

By 1969 Ellsberg began attending anti-war events while still remaining in his position at RAND. He experienced an epiphany attending a War Resisters League conference at Haverford College in August 1969, listening to a speech given by a draft resister named Randy Kehler, who said he was "very excited" that he would soon be able to join his friends in prison.[8]

Ellsberg described his reaction:

And he said this very calmly. I hadn't known that he was about to be sentenced for draft resistance. It hit me as a total surprise and shock, because I heard his words in the midst of actually feeling proud of my country listening to him. And then I heard he was going to prison. It wasn't what he said exactly that changed my worldview. It was the example he was setting with his life. How his words in general showed that he was a stellar American, and that he was going to jail as a very deliberate choice—because he thought it was the right thing to do. There was no question in my mind that my government was involved in an unjust war that was going to continue and get larger. Thousands of young men were dying each year. I left the auditorium and found a deserted men's room. I sat on the floor and cried for over an hour, just sobbing. The only time in my life I've reacted to something like that.[8]

Decades later, reflecting on Kehler's decision, Ellsberg said:

Randy Kehler never thought his going to prison would end the war. If I hadn't met Randy Kehler it wouldn't have occurred to me to copy [the Pentagon Papers]. His actions spoke to me as no mere words would have done. He put the right question in my mind at the right time.[8]

In late 1969—with the assistance of his former RAND Corporation colleague Anthony Russo and the staff of Senator Edward Kennedy—Ellsberg secretly made several sets of photocopies of the classified documents to which he had access; these later became known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed that the government had knowledge, early on, that the war could most likely not be won, and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was ever admitted publicly. Further, as an editor of the New York Times was to write much later, these documents "demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[9]

Shortly after Ellsberg copied the documents, he resolved to meet some of the people who had influenced both his change of heart on the war and his decision to act. One of them was Randy Kehler. Another was the poet Gary Snyder, whom he'd met in Kyoto in 1960, and with whom he'd argued about U.S. foreign policy; Ellsberg was finally prepared to concede that Gary Snyder had been right, about both the situation and the need for action against it.[10]

Throughout 1970, Ellsberg covertly attempted to persuade a few sympathetic U.S. Senators—among them J. William Fulbright, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George McGovern, a leading opponent of the war—to release the papers on the Senate floor, because a Senator could not be prosecuted for anything he said on the record before the Senate. Ellsberg told U.S. Senators that they should be prepared to go to jail in order to end the Vietnam War.[11]

Ellsberg allowed some copies of the documents to circulate privately, including among scholars at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Ellsberg also shared the documents with New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan under a pledge of confidentiality. Sheehan broke his promise to Ellsberg, and built a scoop around what he'd received both directly from Ellsberg and from contacts at IPS.[12]

On Sunday, June 13, 1971, the Times published the first of nine excerpts and commentaries on the 7,000 page collection. For 15 days, the Times was prevented from publishing its articles by court order requested by the Nixon administration. Meanwhile, Ellsberg leaked the documents to The Washington Post and 17 other newspapers.[13][14] On June 30, the Supreme Court ordered publication of the Times to resume freely (New York Times Co. v. United States). Although the Times did not reveal Ellsberg as their source, he went into hiding for 13 days afterwards, suspecting that the evidence would point to him as the source of the unauthorized release of the study.[15]

On June 29, 1971, U.S. Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska entered 4,100 pages of the Papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds—pages which he had received from Ellsberg via Ben Bagdikian—then an editor at the Washington Post. These portions of the Papers were subsequently published by Beacon Press.[16]
Fallout

The release of these papers was politically embarrassing not only to those involved in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations but also to the incumbent Nixon administration. Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14, 1972, shows H. R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon:

Rumsfeld was making this point this morning... To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing.... It shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.[17]

John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General, almost immediately issued a telegram to the Times ordering that it halt publication. The Times refused, and the government brought suit against it.

Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court, prior to that, an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further publication. This was the first time the federal government was able to restrain the publication of a major newspaper since the presidency of Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to seventeen other newspapers in rapid succession.[18] The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York Times Co. v. United States. The Supreme Court ruling has been called one of the "modern pillars" of First Amendment rights with respect to freedom of the press.[19]

As a response to the leaks, the Nixon administration began a campaign against further leaks and against Ellsberg personally.[20] Aides Egil Krogh and David Young, under the supervision of John Ehrlichman, created the "White House Plumbers", which would later lead to the Watergate burglaries.[citation needed]
Fielding break-in
Fielding's filing cabinet, with break-in marks, on display at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History

In August 1971, Krogh and Young met with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt in a basement office in the Old Executive Office Building. Hunt and Liddy recommended a "covert operation" to get a "mother lode" of information about Ellsberg's mental state in order to discredit him. Krogh and Young sent a memo to Ehrlichman seeking his approval for a "covert operation [to] be undertaken to examine all of the medical files still held by Ellsberg's psychiatrist." Ehrlichman approved under the condition that it be "done under your assurance that it is not traceable."[21]

On September 3, 1971, the burglary of Lewis Fielding's office – titled "Hunt/Liddy Special Project No. 1" in Ehrlichman's notes—was carried out by Hunt, Liddy and CIA officers Eugenio Martinez, Felipe de Diego and Bernard Barker. The "Plumbers" failed to find Ellsberg's file. Hunt and Liddy subsequently planned to break into Fielding's home, but Ehrlichman did not approve the second burglary. The break-in was not known to Ellsberg or to the public until it came to light during Ellsberg and Russo's trial in April 1973.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:56 pm

Phatscotty wrote:okay then, Congress is kinda blaming this guy, and not blaming the executive for anything though, so I'm not sure where you are going with this....


Congress is blaming this guy for the same reason I am, which is that he completely broke the chain of command and irresponsibly leaked state secrets to the press instead of doing what the law requires in this case. There is a reason that Snowden had to flee. Doesn't it strike you as rather absurd that he broke the law to report a possible legal violation, and yet he still claims the moral high ground?

Anyways, check out Ellesburg. I'm confident you can relate completely to what he did during Vietnam, and then put this whistleblower story in context.


In the case of the Pentagon papers, Ellsberg did what he was supposed to do, which was reach out to members of Congress first. The fact that it got leaked in the press, as pointed out by your quote, is because of a promise that was broken by the Times reporter. Yet you're saying we should be trusting the media more than our elected officials?
Last edited by Metsfanmax on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:57 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:okay then, Congress is kinda blaming this guy, and not blaming the executive for anything though, so I'm not sure where you are going with this....


Congress is blaming this guy for the same reason I am, which is that he completely broke the chain of command and irresponsibly leaked state secrets to the press instead of doing what the law requires in this case. There is a reason that Snowden had to flee.

Anyways, check out Ellesburg. I'm confident you can relate completely to what he did during Vietnam, and then put this whistleblower story in context.


In the case of the Pentagon papers, Ellsberg did what he was supposed to do, which was reach out to members of Congress first. The fact that it got leaked in the press, as pointed out by your quote, is because of a promise that was broken by the Times reporter. Yet you're saying we should be trusting the media more than our elected officials?


Do we know for sure that Snowden didn't attempt to leak it to Congress? And what does saying Ellesburg "tried" to leak it to Congress first prove? It only proves it didn't work, and left the door open for him to be sold out and silenced and perhaps the Pentagon papers never seeing the light of day. It even turned out to be Congress members telling him to leak it to the media, "we can't do anything", or else they would have.

What is Congress's approval rating...6%? I think people trust Gary Busey more than the current Congress.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby ooge on Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:35 pm

patches70 wrote:John Boehner called NSA leaker Edward Snowden a “traitor”. But is that accurate?

In the United States treason is specifically named and described in the Constitution, the only crime thus defined in the Constitution. It reads like this-

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

To be guilty of treason one must be a citizen and be levying war against the US or giving aid to her enemies.

Snowden gave classified information to the press. Is the press our enemy? Are they waging war against the US?

Snowden isn't guilty of treason, not even close. Sedition, espionage, passing classified information, a case can certainly be made for that, but not treason.

It's funny, though, Snowden may be guilty of sedition (which is defined in part as subversion of a constitution) but what the NSA has been doing is also a subversion of the constitution and thus are equally guilty of subversion as is any and all who subvert the US Constitution. If we want to get technical.

So, do you think this Snowden fellow is a traitor?


is he a traitor,my non legal answer is no.are the house members both democratic and republican who did not impeach Bush knowing full well this was going on"traitors" I am afraid so....the genie is out of the bottle now,they passed laws to make what the NSA is doing legal.
Image
User avatar
Captain ooge
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby ooge on Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:38 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:okay then, Congress is kinda blaming this guy, and not blaming the executive for anything though, so I'm not sure where you are going with this....


Congress is blaming this guy for the same reason I am, which is that he completely broke the chain of command and irresponsibly leaked state secrets to the press instead of doing what the law requires in this case. There is a reason that Snowden had to flee.

Anyways, check out Ellesburg. I'm confident you can relate completely to what he did during Vietnam, and then put this whistleblower story in context.


In the case of the Pentagon papers, Ellsberg did what he was supposed to do, which was reach out to members of Congress first. The fact that it got leaked in the press, as pointed out by your quote, is because of a promise that was broken by the Times reporter. Yet you're saying we should be trusting the media more than our elected officials?


Do we know for sure that Snowden didn't attempt to leak it to Congress? And what does saying Ellesburg "tried" to leak it to Congress first prove? It only proves it didn't work, and left the door open for him to be sold out and silenced and perhaps the Pentagon papers never seeing the light of day. It even turned out to be Congress members telling him to leak it to the media, "we can't do anything", or else they would have.

What is Congress's approval rating...6%? I think people trust Gary Busey more than the current Congress.


Laurence O'donell of MSNBC who at one time worked in the senate stated if Snowden went to the congress to try and do it the legal way,he would have gotten no where.
Image
User avatar
Captain ooge
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:41 pm

ooge wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:okay then, Congress is kinda blaming this guy, and not blaming the executive for anything though, so I'm not sure where you are going with this....


Congress is blaming this guy for the same reason I am, which is that he completely broke the chain of command and irresponsibly leaked state secrets to the press instead of doing what the law requires in this case. There is a reason that Snowden had to flee.

Anyways, check out Ellesburg. I'm confident you can relate completely to what he did during Vietnam, and then put this whistleblower story in context.


In the case of the Pentagon papers, Ellsberg did what he was supposed to do, which was reach out to members of Congress first. The fact that it got leaked in the press, as pointed out by your quote, is because of a promise that was broken by the Times reporter. Yet you're saying we should be trusting the media more than our elected officials?


Do we know for sure that Snowden didn't attempt to leak it to Congress? And what does saying Ellesburg "tried" to leak it to Congress first prove? It only proves it didn't work, and left the door open for him to be sold out and silenced and perhaps the Pentagon papers never seeing the light of day. It even turned out to be Congress members telling him to leak it to the media, "we can't do anything", or else they would have.

What is Congress's approval rating...6%? I think people trust Gary Busey more than the current Congress.


Laurence O'donell of MSNBC who at one time worked in the senate stated if Snowden went to the congress to try and do it the legal way,he would have gotten no where.


not to mention, if the government had the exact kind of 2013 capabilities that this is all about at the time of Ellesburg, I don't think we would have ever heard his name.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby DoomYoshi on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:06 pm

Inspector Gadget

DHX Media • 26 x 11 minutes

Premiere Date TBC on TELETOON

MAD Agents, look out! Criminals, beware! Bystanders … take cover! Inspector Gadget is back to battle Dr. Claw with all-new gadgets – and all-new gadget-related chaos. But the loveable, bumbling, accidentally-destructive Inspector is not alone in the fight to take down MAD. His ever trusty police-dog, Brain, is still by his side and he’s getting extra crime-fighting help from his new partner, Inspector-in-training Penny. With MAD more powerful than ever and with the arrival of Dr. Claw’s evil-genius (and totally crush-worthy) nephew, Penny and Brain will need to use every ounce of their training to keep the world safe from Dr. Claw … and Gadget.
░▒▒▓▓▓▒▒░
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:50 pm

Woodruff wrote:
Lootifer wrote:BBS is right; technically he is a traitor. However the assistance he gave to the enemy is likely very small.


Which of our enemies did he aid? I don't see where he could have aided them with this information. The enemy is almost certainly as aware it was going on as I was.


Anyone?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:51 pm

Orwell wrote:If we, as a society, cannot fight extremists and terrorism with reason and due process, we lose - we lose what we stand for.


Yes, we have. Already.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:52 pm

Night Strike wrote:Why is Congress the only ones with the "authority" to receive whistleblowing reports?


Well, that is what the law says, which essentially gives them that authority.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:54 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Why is Congress the only ones with the "authority" to receive whistleblowing reports? Remember, we're told that all of Congress knew about these programs, yet they're banned from talking about it publicly. How can there be accountable whistleblowing when the ones who "oversee" the executive branch are gagged by the same executive branch that determines whether or not something is classified?


Let's ask Night Strike...

Night Strike wrote:Well, considering it's the executive branch's job to investigate crimes, yet Obama puts Holder in charge of investigating himself, obviously an outside party needs to become involved. Plus, Congressional oversight of the executive branch is also their job. The executive branch doesn't have unlimited power once a law is passed by Congress.


The point here is that if the executive branch is actually doing something illegal, then Congress has the right to initiative an investigation. If Snowden was whistleblowing on an activity that he just didn't like, but isn't expressly unconstitutional or illegal, then Congress doesn't have to do anything, and it doesn't make Snowden a hero just for speaking his mind.


Sure, I agree. Yet if the two branches are essentially in bed together on the issue, which certainly appears to be the case, then Snowden would be wasting his breath in "whistleblowing" and could just be made to disappear.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:55 pm

Phatscotty wrote:I finally found this interview I saw yesterday. This guy spent a lot of time with Snowden over the last 3 weeks, maybe the only one who did. He answered a lot of important questions, I only hope they aren't edited out of this clip.

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/1 ... tivations/


Um...you didn't even watch the clip you're giving us?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:56 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:There is still a lot more to the story. Yes, he broke the law and went against confidentiality statements. But I have to ask ya, if you signed a confidentiality statement, and things started going further and further into gray areas, and the person who requested you sign it eventually asked you to kill somebody, would you say something? Do you think they wouldn't hold the fear over your head that you have broke the law for them in the past in order to keep you owned? Or would you keep your word to a murderer? Are you sure you can trust the person you think you would need to tell?


I trust members of Congress a lot more than I trust Fox News.


Yes, I would agree with that. I wouldn't trust members of Congress a lot more than I trust someone like Glenn Greenwald, however.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:57 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:There is a reason that Snowden had to flee. Doesn't it strike you as rather absurd that he broke the law to report a possible legal violation, and yet he still claims the moral high ground?


Not necessarily, no. Following the law just because it's the law is not at all necessarily the moral thing to do.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby Night Strike on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:00 pm

Woodruff wrote:Sure, I agree. Yet if the two branches are essentially in bed together on the issue, which certainly appears to be the case, then Snowden would be wasting his breath in "whistleblowing" and could just be made to disappear.


They don't even have to be explicitly in bed with each other. Because of the way classified status works, the executive branch gets exclusive control over the content. Even if members of Congress are briefed on the law, they're not allowed to discuss it with other non-briefed/cleared staff or Congressmen. And I believe they're also barred from filing suit in non-FISA courts.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: He's called a "traitor"

Postby oVo on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:21 pm

patches70 wrote:So, do you think this Snowden fellow is a traitor?

An American with a conscience becomes a whistle blower, much like the wikileaks
and Daniel Ellsberg before him. The government is exposed for over stepping
their legitimate authority and wish to fry the people responsible.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users