Edward Snowden

[Jake Brake]

Obama Administration, NSA, Congress have plenty of explaining to do and none are talking.

Of what little I know of Eward Snowden I vote in favor of him being a hero, a patriot.

 

[keith99]

My avatar and many others were both patriots and traitors.

The groups are not exclusive.

 

[Billnew]

I don't think I know enough about it.
It sounds as patriot/hero but I will wait to see if there is alt. motives.
Did he leak only the least amount of info to get it out, or did he go too far in certain areas? The trouble with classified info, you never know how important each little bit of info is, except in the big picture.

Another interesting question:
What will/should happen to him now?
There are those that believe he will be killed.
There are those that think he should be tried as a spy.

 

[Jake Brake]

I only know a little from CNN. The talking heads say that Snowden went to Hong Kong, did an interview and now has disappeared. They criticize the 29 year old young man in saying if Snowden believed in principles why run off to Hong Kong, what other classified information did Snowden take with him, and where is he now.
I would run too in knowing the past practice of our government.

Since Snowden has disappeared I wonder if the US didn't pick him up and take him to a black site for enhanced interrogations, they have done it before. And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the government labeled him as a terrorist and an drone attack killed Snowden to keep him from talking, that's been done before too. Dead men can't talk.

Also, In not hearing much from the Tea-Party types who profess freedom, constitutional rights and small non-intrusive government. That to me is alarming.

 

[cow451]

My avatar and many others were both patriots and traitors.

The groups are not exclusive.

Very few people are "all good" or "all bad". I have mixed feelings at this point. Was his agenda really pure?

After all, he could've done much the same without as much personal recognition.

But, this practice needs more oversight.

 

[bhsmte]

To me, here is bottom line:

If what he exposed was done in a legal way, without the government abusing the practice, he should be prosecuted. He should have known the law and his responsibilities in his own job.

On the other hand, if what he exposed turns out to be an overextension of the law or involving abuses of the practice, than he should be hailed as having an incredible amount of courage to come forward.

Until we know the facts, no way to tell which category he fits in.

 

[usexpat97]

Snowden has a very bright (albeit paranoid) future ahead of him. All kinds of intelligence agencies around the world would want him, and even for a hefty pay raise over his last job. They'll completely obliterate his identity, and he'll be back to doing what he does best--as an intelligence analyst--in no time. They know like we do, that he turned on their enemy--the U.S.--out of conviction, so as long as they know they can convince Snowden to his satisfaction that they are not doing all the same things the NSA does, he can be trusted as far as they are concerned.

 

[ulu]

To me, here is bottom line:

If what he exposed was done in a legal way, without the government abusing the practice, he should be prosecuted. He should have known the law and his responsibilities in his own job.

On the other hand, if what he exposed turns out to be an overextension of the law or involving abuses of the practice, than he should be hailed as having an incredible amount of courage to come forward.

Until we know the facts, no way to tell which category he fits in.

Is he not saying that the gov is so corrupt that they believe they are legally allowed to read emails etc of any person for , in effect, any reason.
It may be that what he did was illegal, but it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, at this point already, it's gone too far and will never go back.
There is no privacy in 2013.

 

[bhsmte]

Is he not saying that the gov is so corrupt that they believe they are legally allowed to read emails etc of any person for , in effect, any reason.
It may be that what he did was illegal, but it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, at this point already, it's gone too far and will never go back.
There is no privacy in 2013.

I don't care what he says, I only care about what the facts show. if people were simply judged on what they say, we would all be in serious trouble.

Regardless of what people think, if it was legal and was not abused in the sense of what it was intended, than he was wrong and it shouldn't matter what he thinks or public opinion. If what he says is true and there is evidence to back it up, than it will be next to impossible for the government to prosecute him and he should be hailed for his courage.

At the end of the day, this is the American way. We are a nation of knee jerk reactions. After 9/11, people were all for the government doing what they needed to (even if it meant encroaching a bit on privacy) to prevent another similar attack. Now, that 9/11 has worn off, people are going back the other way. If we had another attack as dramatic as 9/11, people would go back the other way and this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Supreme]

He's both a hero and a traitor. People deserve to know if their government is violating their rights and freedom. At the same time, he gave away sensitive information the government needed to keep private.

 

[Gadarene]

I don't care what he says, I only care about what the facts show. if people were simply judged on what they say, we would all be in serious trouble.

Regardless of what people think, if it was legal and was not abused in the sense of what it was intended, than he was wrong and it shouldn't matter what he thinks or public opinion. If what he says is true and there is evidence to back it up, than it will be next to impossible for the government to prosecute him and he should be hailed for his courage.

At the end of the day, this is the American way. We are a nation of knee jerk reactions. After 9/11, people were all for the government doing what they needed to (even if it meant encroaching a bit on privacy) to prevent another similar attack. Now, that 9/11 has worn off, people are going back the other way. If we had another attack as dramatic as 9/11, people would go back the other way and this wouldn't be an issue.

Really? Where specifically did people explicitly consent, nay call for, for the US government to access their data?

You forget this isn't just about you. The entire global user base of these Internet services can be tapped via Prism.

I would say they should spy on their own people and leave us out of it, but expecting the US to extend the same human rights they grant their own citizens to everyone else is like expected the sun not to rise.

 

[bhsmte]

Really? Where specifically did people explicitly consent, nay call for, for the US government to access their data?

You forget this isn't just about you. The entire global user base of these Internet services can be tapped via Prism.

I would say they should spy on their own people and leave us out of it, but expecting the US to extend the same human rights they grant their own citizens to everyone else is like expected the sun not to rise.

They consent through the representatives they vote into office that pass laws (patriot act is an example) that allows certain tracking of information that was born out of 9/11.

If people don't like it, they should hammer their representatives to rescind the law or legislate new laws that are more restrictive of this type of monitoring. That is the democratic way. Also, no one has stopped anyone in the last 10 years from seeking court rulings if they feel the law is unconstitutional and take it all the way to the supreme court. That again, is the democratic way and how our country works.

I will say one last time; if the government followed the law that allows this data collection to take place and or did not abuse the procedures in how this was done, the whistleblower broke the law and he should have fully aware he broke the law.

Again, if evidence shows, the government did not follow the law and or abused the procedures that put data at risk, then the guy has a hell of a lot of courage and the government wouldn't have a prayer (nor would they want to) of prosecuting him.

 

[Gadarene]

They consent through the representatives they vote into office that pass laws (patriot act is an example) that allows certain tracking of information that was born out of 9/11.

If people don't like it, they should hammer their representatives to rescind the law or legislate new laws that are more restrictive of this type of monitoring. That is the democratic way. Also, no one has stopped anyone in the last 10 years from seeking court rulings if they feel the law is unconstitutional and take it all the way to the supreme court. That again, is the democratic way and how our country works.

I will say one last time; if the government followed the law that allows this data collection to take place and or did not abuse the procedures in how this was done, the whistleblower broke the law and he should have fully aware he broke the law.

Again, if evidence shows, the government did not follow the law and or abused the procedures that put data at risk, then the guy has a hell of a lot of courage and the government wouldn't have a prayer (nor would they want to) of prosecuting him.

Did you miss the bit about the people affected outside the US? The ones that didn't decide to have their data snooped on?

This may shock you, but there are other countries and peoples out there besides America.

 

[bhsmte]

Did you miss the bit about the people affected outside the US? The ones that didn't decide to have their data snooped on?

This may shock you, but there are other countries and peoples out there besides America.

Do you really think other countries don't do similar things? I haven't seen or heard other countries coming forward condeming this practice that may impact their citizens, because most are probably doing something very similar.

I am not aware of any international laws or jurisdiction that would apply to foreigners who had data intercepted. If there is, people can pursue it, but I am concerned about US citizens here, not foreigners.

What were your thoughts on the testimony today from the NSA director, claiming over a dozen potential attacks were averted because of this program? I have no idea whether the guy is blowing smoke, but if he isn't, do you have a problem with this program impacting foreigners if it is able to prevent terror attacks on US soil?

I will stand by my previous statement about waiting for evidence as to whether laws were broken or abuses took place for final judgement.

 

[ulu]

Do you really think other countries don't do similar things?
.

It's possible that countries which consistently rate high on human rights abuses attempt this sort of thing, but most countries likely do not. Like the gov killing people without reason, the gov spying on people without reason is something which the vast majority in my country, for example, would be very much against.
Especially since 9/11/bush/cheney the US has become known worldwide as a nation whose gov is willing to sacrifice the freedom of its people, in the hopeless quest to keep the "bad guys" out.
Comparing even the security at the port of miami,for example, to any of the other 120+ ports around the world I've been to. There are more hoops crewmembers have to jump through in miami, and more restrictions, than anywhere, except possibly israel.
The US gov has greater tech capability than most governments, and continues to show a lack of concern for the wishes of its people.

Just because a law wasn't broken doesn't mean it's right. The US military depends on the mindset of "if the gov says do it and it's legal, it must be OK."

 

[usexpat97]

It's possible that countries which consistently rate high on human rights abuses attempt this sort of thing, but most countries likely do not. Like the gov killing people without reason, the gov spying on people without reason is something which the vast majority in my country, for example, would be very much against.

Very good point. This U.S. behavior is very much consistent with countries laden with human rights abuses.

 

[bhsmte]

Very good point. This U.S. behavior is very much consistent with countries laden with human rights abuses.

The true test of whether other advanced countries with good human rights track records aren't doing the same, is if they publicly criticize what the US has done here that could impact their own citizens. If they don't, it means they don't want to go down that road, because this practice could be common place in today's world.

 

[bhsmte]

It's possible that countries which consistently rate high on human rights abuses attempt this sort of thing, but most countries likely do not. Like the gov killing people without reason, the gov spying on people without reason is something which the vast majority in my country, for example, would be very much against.
Especially since 9/11/bush/cheney the US has become known worldwide as a nation whose gov is willing to sacrifice the freedom of its people, in the hopeless quest to keep the "bad guys" out.
Comparing even the security at the port of miami,for example, to any of the other 120+ ports around the world I've been to. There are more hoops crewmembers have to jump through in miami, and more restrictions, than anywhere, except possibly israel.
The US gov has greater tech capability than most governments, and continues to show a lack of concern for the wishes of its people.

Just because a law wasn't broken doesn't mean it's right. The US military depends on the mindset of "if the gov says do it and it's legal, it must be OK."

I wouldn't be so sure that other countries are not performing similar activities. If they are, they certainly aren't going to announce it in the public and it will be kept secret.

I would say you are being a bit naive and I would be surprised if other advanced free countries were not engaging in this activity.

 

[JamieRedhead]

Members of the European Parliament said Prism could increase pressure on European trade negotiators to demand American respect for the European Union privacy rules as in coming months they attempt to work out a trans-Atlantic trade pact.