Gary Childress
Student for and of life
Hmm. I guess you are right.
A Victory for Edward Snowden?
- Thread starter Berzerker
- Start date
Hmm. I guess you are right.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
He's a traitor to the military/intelligence establishment/industry in the U.S. Just not a traitor to the American people.
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
Never mind. See my last post above.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
It's not impossible, and the law for it is there for a reason.
I strongly disagree with this and quite simply, that's not how it works.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
He's a hero in my eyes and many others, because he pulled down the curtain and showed us what nasty things were happening there. Without his sacrifice, many of us still wouldn't know. I understand that some Americans will villify him for the same reason.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Outing traitors is not treason, even if the act itself might put the people used by the traitors at risk. You just see the situation completely backward.
If your general asks you to kill the President, he's the traitor, not the soldier who refuses to obey the order.
Snowden has outed the traitorous organisations which where the ones betraying the country and the people at large. THEY were the traitors, he's the one keeping things straights.
I'm not sure it's deliberate blindness or simple naïveté here.
Sure, you'll get a reliable legal and lawful protection when your whistleblowing is outing the very people who actually have the authority to give you said legal and lawful protection
Okay, you anwered my question above. It's deliberate blindness.
poom3619
Ping Pang Poom!
Snowden do put his issue (and himself) into the spotlight, that the US government legally have access to the data that more than what ardent stalker has. I imagine that he would be somehow silenced by the government and this thing wouldn't never leak into media, or the media will also be silenced before the news goes worldwide.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Some of the info collected is disturbing, like weakening internet security and hacking servers just to gather data. I don't want my banking info and personal emails more accessible to criminals and identity thieves just so the government can better keep tabs on me.
But phone meta data? I struggle to see why anyone cares if that is collected or not. As long as they don't use it for political gains like the IRS possibly did with refusing non profit status to some political groups or whatever that controversy was, then I don't really care. I mean I don't care if anyone or everyone knows that I called my wife outside of work at 12pm, why does it matter? Why do you care?
But phone meta data? I struggle to see why anyone cares if that is collected or not. As long as they don't use it for political gains like the IRS possibly did with refusing non profit status to some political groups or whatever that controversy was, then I don't really care. I mean I don't care if anyone or everyone knows that I called my wife outside of work at 12pm, why does it matter? Why do you care?
The IRS used organization titles as a sorting mechanism to go after political organizations trying to wrongfully get tax-exempt status. I do not think anyone from the IRS cares how many times a Tea Partier is calling the government wondering when the social security check is coming.
Berzerker
Deity
treason is defined in the Constitution, exposing people who lied us into war and then spied on us in violation of the Constitution is not treason
The us constitution doesn't define English.
Call it "american constitutional treason" if you like.
I think in America's founding documents, English and treason are kissing cousins.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
If all he had done was that, or if he had done it in a manner which would not have aided our enemy or put servicemen in danger, I would probably agree with you. But that's not simply the case.
Consider, if you will, that Snowden could have accomplished the same thing except he would have never been in the limelight, and our enemies would not have been the wiser to our methods, or US servicemen and women put at higher risk.
Outing traitors is not treason, even if the act itself might put the people used by the traitors at risk. You just see the situation completely backward.
If your general asks you to kill the President, he's the traitor, not the soldier who refuses to obey the order.
Snowden has outed the traitorous organisations which where the ones betraying the country and the people at large. THEY were the traitors, he's the one keeping things straights.
I'm not sure it's deliberate blindness or simple naïveté here.
Sure, you'll get a reliable legal and lawful protection when your whistleblowing is outing the very people who actually have the authority to give you said legal and lawful protection
Okay, you anwered my question above. It's deliberate blindness.
Actually, I tend to believe that you, and more than a few others, see this backwards. I think I understand how lawful orders work far better than you, since it was indeed my career for so long. If said General gives you an unlawful order, you don't go to the press with it, you go to the Inspector General with it. And yes, I have seen even Generals get court martialed for the criminal behavior they commit so I know full well that system can and has worked.
And your definition of 'traitor' is simply incorrect. While parts of the program Snowden outed may have been unlawful, they simply were not traitorous. Can we agree that words have meaning? I hope so, and if so, then please realize you're using the word incorrectly.
Acting against (broadly & specifically) those in power is often seen as traitorous. To others, it can be less so or perhaps heroic. I am not a fan of the NSA's secret programs, so when Snowden pulled back the curtain, it was great to see them squirm. The damage wasn't from the revelation, but from the revelation that the NSA was running terrible programs they shouldn't have been. They were cheating on their wife (US citizens) and somebody took pictures and illegally made them public. The NSA wants to blame the photographer.
Bush's lying to get us into two wars took a far greater toll on this country than Snowden ever did. While bush was not a traitor, by the common definition, he certainly used his power to bring untold suffering to tens of thousands of American and Middle Eastern families. Bush is far more a criminal in my mind than Snowden ever will be.
Bush's lying to get us into two wars took a far greater toll on this country than Snowden ever did. While bush was not a traitor, by the common definition, he certainly used his power to bring untold suffering to tens of thousands of American and Middle Eastern families. Bush is far more a criminal in my mind than Snowden ever will be.
Pangaea
Rock N Roller
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,390
Certainly. Bush' actions actually cost lives, and rather many lives. Not even the NSA/military has been able to show any damage, besides to their reputation, of Snowden's revelations.
If the USA (government/establishment) really was as concerned with democracy and freedom as they endlessly claim, Snowden would be a national hero.
Akka
Moody old mage.
And you're obviously so completely blinded by these procedures you completely miss the actual concept and meaning behind them, and also confuse WHO you own your loyalty to - hint : it's not the institutions, it's the country that these institutions are supposed to defend.
So basically, if your boss is betraying a higher authority, you denounce him to this higher authority.
The situation at hand is that the highest institution betrayed the ultimate authority (that is, the people in general). It means that Snowden actually did exactly what you said : he outed them (the institution) to their "boss" (the people, the "demos" in "democracy"). So he did exactly what you claim he should. It seems you just don't realize who betrayed who and who is the actual legitimate authority here.
Actually no I'm not. You're the one using it incorrectly, by mixing "unlawful" with "traitorous". A traitor betrays his country. Snowden actually PROTECTED his country from the people who betrayed it.
What Snowden did was unlawful. What he did was NOT traitorous, because he actually upheld the trust of the LEGITIMATE authority - not the CIA, not the NSA, but the actual people who are supposed to be the source of power in democracy (if you're speaking about words and meaning, look at what "democracy" means).
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I suppose he didn't see a way to do that - no legal channels for him to expose the wrongdoing he discovered. He likely did the only thing he could. I doubt he really wanted to put anyone in danger. Imagine if you discovered a horrible secret about the people you work for - and the only way to tell everyone was also slightly dangerous. It must not have been an easy decision - but in the end he just wanted us to know. Sometimes you've got to make sacrifices for the greater good - that is something heroes often have to make a decision on, while at the same time realizing that they will be branded as traitors or enemies by many. It wasn't an easy decision to make, but those above him likely didn't leave him with much choice - whistleblowers don't get many protections in the U.S. and are often made an example of. That's not even to mention all the corruption and shady business going on in your government and intelligence agencies.
This had to come out one way or another and he probably didn't see any other way. It was either keep quiet like a coward, or.. speak up and deal with the consequences. Many people would have just kept quiet and never shared what needed sharing.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
To me, it's about my brothers and sisters that I served with for 26 years and that remain in harms way today. Snowden's illegal actions put them more at risk and aided the efforts of our enemies. That does indeed meet the definition of treason.
Actually, our government has 3 equally powerful branches, and its designed that way for a reason. The whistleblower act is a law for a reason.
I'm not in denial about what Snowden revealed. However, he did so with complete disregard for our service men and women in harms way, and choose to put himself in the limelight instead of working within the whistleblower system itself.
Then you are in denial as well as incorrect. Unlawful or even unconstitutional action does not necessarily mean traitorous action. The program gathering the meta-data, while possibly unlawful, was not traitorous - it never aided or abetted an enemy of the United States and in fact it was directed against said enemies. But Snowden's release of confidential material did indeed help and assist our enemies, in that it gave them knowledge and insight to how we were tracking them, made our enemies harder to find, and put our service men and women more at risk in doing so. That is indeed the definition of traitorous action.
That is simply the fact of the matter. You whining and crying about it wont change that fact one little bit.
Snowden's actions did more than just this, and you're failure to recognize that is what makes you incorrect about it.
Warpus, that's the point. There were legal channels for him to use, and to expose this, he simply decided to go another route.
I don't believe this was a sacrifice for the greater good. I see it more as a cult of personality decision to be honest. He saw this as his chance at fame and he took it. I think that is why he demanded to be named specifically when he turned all this over to the media. He absolutely knew there were be those that would hail him a hero simply for doing what he did.
Similar threads
