Is Snowden guilty of espionage? - Page 11

On June 26 2013 09:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I find the most depressing thing about this is the huge shrug of apathy that greets news like this, especially in my workplace. People just genuinely don't give a fuck, even if they are relatively informed.

That said, in terms of data collection it's (as far as I'm aware) not all that much more than people stick up on Facebook, or allow other companies like Google to store. Privacy for the sake of privacy is, or should be something worth protecting, I don't really understand why this isn't such a big deal for a lot of folks, but ah well.

On June 26 2013 11:07 teddyoojo wrote:

how many ppl play battlefield 3? how many ppl use facebook? thats like the first steps that lead ppl into not caring about this.

On June 26 2013 11:34 jellyjello wrote:
So now, we have a nightmarish foreign policy dilemma. Obama administration sure is looking like a fool at the moment. Personally, I'm glad that more and more press are beginning to realize what a clown fool this president is.

On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.

I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.

I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.

All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.

It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.

Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.



I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.

I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.

On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote:

I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.

All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.

It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.

On June 26 2013 11:49 AnomalySC2 wrote:


Do you think if there were cases of them abusing this power and ruining US citizen's lives with it...that you would actually hear about it publicly?

On June 26 2013 11:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:


You do make a point, but I think that if that is what people think then it could lead to dire consequences in the future. The problem with a slippery slope is once it starts, its almost impossible to come back the other way. Think of it like global warming, whether you believe in it or not, none of us really wants to do anything until we actually start seeing large chunks of the population being wiped out by natural disasters, problem is by then its already too late.

These issues need to be resolved before they become a real issue. Remove the poverty aspect and this situation is not at all that different from 1984, if Winston had acted normal like the rest of the population there wouldn't be much of a story and you would have thought the system wasn't that bad at all. What happened to Winston is much like what is happening to Manning or going to happen to Snowden.

There are many cases of innocent people being arrested for thought crimes, yes. Its not hard to find an article about a person who was minding his own business in his own home only to have law enforcement smash down the front door for a crime he didn't commit, nor was it an actual crime, it was a thought crime.

Know that the reason you haven't been arrested is because of the herd aspect, the law enforcement can't arrest everybody, so there are "token" arrests in which people that are arrested for thought crimes become an example to scare everyone. You just haven't been one of the ones that have been unlucky to be chosen.

Whistle-blowing is not against the law. If he did what he did for any other business he would simply be fired. However if a business was ever in control of the law and law enforcement then things would be hugely different and that is the problem.

We should be free to say whatever we want without fear of persecution, right now it seems that a lot of people are being wrongfully imprisoned for doing just this.

The US at least, now no longer permits free speech, and that is a big deal. If the laws don't permit free speech, then it should be changed.. On top of this, we now have a big brother looking out for more "Winstons".

On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.

I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.

I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.

All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.

It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.

Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.



I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.

On June 26 2013 11:16 radscorpion9 wrote:
I think Obama did take pains to ensure that the program he set up was legal under current laws...and it probably is being the legal scholar that he is, although many would say it shouldn't be.

I think when you're dealing with terrorism you're going to need to have some form of espionage. And if its out in the open for everyone to see, then they will simply avoid those channels that they know Americans are listening in on (its clearly not espionage anymore ). I think the problem I have with most people who view Snowden as a hero, is that they believe that a system that is based on a very restrictive method of collecting hard evidence will be sufficient to stop terrorism. I think its more than a bit idealistic to think that Anwar al-awlaki, for example, could have been extradited through some formal legal process. Life doesn't always work by the book, and in those cases action should be taken when every last reasonable resort has been ruled out.

I can't really say whether the system has enough built in protections. Apparently it was regularly reviewed, and approved by, congress.

All I can say is that, if what Snowden revealed actually was illegal or unconstitutional, then yes he was a hero. But if everything was legal and constitutional, and congress effectively approved of it even if its scope wasn't completely known for security reasons, then yes he is guilty and is effectively a traitor.

It doesn't matter whether you have good intentions, US law is supposed to mean something. There is supposed to be a political process by which the people decide, through their representatives, what programs should be allowed and what shouldn't...and it shouldn't be up to individuals who have personal disagreements with the law to share vital national security interests that in turn will inform terrorist networks of what channels to avoid communicating on, just because in his opinion it crosses the line. That's not his job - its the president's job, its congress' job.

Its definitely a murky piece of business so I can't speak to confidently about anything. I guess we'll have to wait for the supreme court to make ruling? Is that it? I'm not sure what the progress of the ACLU lawsuit is, now that new information has surfaced.



I guess the other thing is, are there any cases that really show that the US abused its power? Is there any real evidence of this in the US, or any feeling that by a slippery slope the US will turn fascistic? I think that's why most people don't care; they largely trust those in charge, and feel the president is doing his best to put in checks and balances while not compromising national security by revealing exactly how the US does its espionage.

On June 26 2013 11:56 jellyjello wrote:


This is not about the free speech. He had classified information and ran with it to the press without a proper authorization.

On June 26 2013 14:00 cutler wrote:
i really dont know why peole make such a big deal about this. Companies always collected data...for so called "market research" ;-) and NSA was founded to analyze this kind of data in order to protect the US. Not a huge deal at all...Snowden basically said what everyone already knows. Just read Wikipedia...