Is Snowden guilty of espionage? - Page 10

Loyal to my country always. Loyal to my government when it deserves it.

Anyone who is willing to give up some of their freedom for some security deserves neither and will lose both.

On June 26 2013 08:16 darkness wrote:


I think adapting has nothing to do with freedom which is often synonym of democracy. Thus said, it's hilarious how USA and UK pretend to be anti-communist, while playing the Big Brother role at the same time. Example of USA (Snowden's case) and of UK (CCTV everywhere).

On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote:
Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.

He dug his own grave.

On June 26 2013 08:26 KingAce wrote:
Well yes. What the government did, was legal. It went through proper checks and balances to obtain that information. Now whether you like that or not is up for debate. However, what Snowden has done is made things worse for himself. He didn't have to run, the citizens would have backed him up. But fleeing to foreign countries and such...attempting to sell information is a whole different issue. I was right there with him on exposing the truth about the government to the citizens of the US. But going to other governments for amnesty in trade of US govt secrets was stupid.

He dug his own grave.

On June 26 2013 08:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I'd still support him. But he does not have a legal leg to stand on the moment a transaction is made....

On June 26 2013 08:38 aksfjh wrote:

He hardly had a legal leg with the initial leaks. He would have only been okay if courts and/or public opinion protected him by taking those NSA privileges away. If done in court, Snowden would be protected by whistleblower laws. If taken away through legislation, he may have a legal avenue, need a Congressional nod, or a Presidential pardon. Now he's screwed if he literally sold secrets.

On June 26 2013 08:37 Infernal_dream wrote:


What the government did was not legal. The people in the end decide what is legal and what is not, not our government. If we left everything to the government we'd have no freedoms. Get it? Just because the government goes "yes it's ok to spy on people" does not mean it's ok. Had this been fleshed out and actually voted on it wouldn't have gone through. Tell me how it's legal to secretly spy on people? I can't put a webcam in my neighbors house, and it's illegal for my neighbor to access my webcam. If it's illegal for him it's illegal for the government.

On June 26 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:


That's what I mean.

When he simply gave it to everyone you could start a trial to re-evaluate privacy laws and actually discuss and argue the relevance and importance of the NSA.

But if he sells secrets?

No bueno...

On June 26 2013 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Well sort of...

Democracy and Communism are not the source of Big Brother. Paranoia and fear creates Big Brother--it's not an exclusively Communist ideal.

However, with power comes paranoia. Communism centralizes power (for efficiency) and in doing so gives power too quickly to one centralized body. This speeds up paranoia. Democracy is slower in its paranoia--but once it has it it holds on to it since everyone plays the game of "doing the right thing."

Eventually all methods of government will become Big Brother.

On June 26 2013 08:44 Shiori wrote:

Democracy and Communism are not in opposition. One is a system of decision making whereas the other is an economic system of class elimination. Communist societies do not need to be totalitarian; in fact, lots of modern communists assert that democracy is integral to any communist society, as is voluntarism.

On June 26 2013 09:52 furymonkey wrote:
Because to the majority of people, the actual impact of this is very little or non existent. To the majority, they either view the issue as over paranoid or simply not pressing enough to care. Does it impact your home mortgage? Does it bring less food to the table? Will the salary change? You'll find no for all of these answer, and for the majority, this is what it actually matters. And you can't blame them, because there is probably another hundred matters equivalent to this, which is irrelevant to most people.

On June 26 2013 10:00 Cereb wrote:
What I really find disgusting is how much time, effort, and focus is being used on trying to capture this guy in relation to how little time, effort, and focus is being used to take a long hard look at this and fix this horrible and corrupt system.

On June 26 2013 09:52 furymonkey wrote:
Because to the majority of people, the actual impact of this is very little or non existent. To the majority, they either view the issue as over paranoid or simply not pressing enough to care. Does it impact your home mortgage? Does it bring less food to the table? Will the salary change? You'll find no for all of these answer, and for the majority, this is what it actually matters. And you can't blame them, because there is probably another hundred matters equivalent to this, which is irrelevant to most people.

On June 26 2013 10:00 Cereb wrote:
What I really find disgusting is how much time, effort, and focus is being used on trying to capture this guy in relation to how little time, effort, and focus is being used to take a long hard look at this and fix this horrible and corrupt system.

On June 26 2013 10:00 screamingpalm wrote:


So basically Niemöller's "First they came...".