On August 11 2013 16:12 caelym wrote: Whether you think it's fair or not, Snowden disclosed classified information which by definition contains sensitive information about the US government. Top Secret classification is defined as: "Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available." Every government employee and contractor HAS to sign forms that acknowledge this and its legal repercussions. He's 100% guilty for the things they charged him with because he literally signed a contract that said he wouldn't do a, b, and c or else he'd be committing x, y, and z crimes.
then by your standard, how can there ever be a whistleblower? it is there to in check if the company/government is not conducting things that are dishonest, corruption etcetc this is why there is whistleblower protection act.
most public viewed that NSA program is a direct threat to public interest and yet the government is determined to label it differently.
what's worse is how US is treating the case with the links I put up above. Those are definitly not what we would expect from a country that consistently "promoting" and doing reports on other countries' human right
It depends on what you "whistleblow", obviously. Problem with Snowden is he mainly revealed questionable activities pertaining to internet privacy/rights, a pretty murky and uncharted issue presently. I don't blame him for thinking a court might not see it the way many others might or should, especially with the broad specter of "terrorism" being a major factor in it. Skipping town was probably the smart move for him personally.
If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
Companies already sell data to each other in order to track and improve marketing tactics, plan buying trends, and predict product lines. They are simply adding one more vendor to their roster of places they send data to.
You don't change bad laws by running to a different country. Civil rights, slavery, voting rights, workers rights, etc... Was not won by running away to another country. It was won by people standing up to oppressors and forcing change.
I like snowden, I think what he revealed is important, but if he runs to a different country and sells government secrets then he simply reinforces the importance of NSA's job to protect the country and hence entrenches the policies he was attempting to break.
Before the IRS started targeting conservative Tea Party members... I would have been a lot more upset about Snowden. However, since the government has already proven they will take the information they have and use it against average citizens doing absolutely nothing wrong....
Dismantle this NSA program and give Snowden a medal. He deserves our respect and appreciation, not prison.
Ben Franklin said it best: "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
Wait, I am not sure how their is an argument on this.
If Snowden revealed real and pertinent information to the rest of the world, of illegal activities happening in the USA, then he can't be held accountable by that same government. As the natural reaction would be to respond to deny.
I think what is happening here is, that the US government, are causing alot of media attention on HIM, to try and muddy the fact; that they are and have been illegally working in the US and abroad very blatantly and consciously.(the title itself shows this, addressing Snowden and and not the fact the US Government is illegally working.)
So up until this point, we have to take the facts as they are, and not the possibilities that could be, as this will dilute the truth(or as close as we will ever see it) upon which we can judge and base our decisions on what is/was the correct decision by Snowden and thusly what our moral response should be.
If he was working for China, then if that is ever confirmed by him or by a tribunal, we take it into account.
Work purely off the facts and make judgements on those.
We simple minded folks don't get to caught up in the subtleties of these types of things. But, my common sense tells me that freedom from my government piling up information on me, especially after proving they're willing to use it against citizenry not engaged in terrorism, is about as essential as it gets.
I'm not really clued in with the nitty gritty of the whole situation and the way the laws in the US are set up, so i cant really comment with any certainty. But i've always found it strange regarding snowden that everyone seems to acknowledge what he did compromised government agencies and surveillance programs, but to me it comes down to a question of national interest. Obviously he acted in a way that was not aligned with government interests, but did he act in the national interest when he disclosed to the media the level of snooping going on, and in that respect I think he did.
It's strange times we live in when the national interest and government interests don't appear aligned...
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
Companies already sell data to each other in order to track and improve marketing tactics, plan buying trends, and predict product lines. They are simply adding one more vendor to their roster of places they send data to.
You don't change bad laws by running to a different country. Civil rights, slavery, voting rights, workers rights, etc... Was not won by running away to another country. It was won by people standing up to oppressors and forcing change.
I like snowden, I think what he revealed is important, but if he runs to a different country and sells government secrets then he simply reinforces the importance of NSA's job to protect the country and hence entrenches the policies he was attempting to break.
You don't fix laws by committing treason.
everywhere sells and track marketing tactics, but not if the government can map out your whole life by demanding data across all different industries and has the power to do what they want with those data. I think then our view point splits between whether snowden was correct in running to another country. I personally think he wasn't trying to sell any secrets, reason being he revealed the secrets AND actually had difficulty seeking asylum from other countries. You call that treason, I call that trying to stay alive. not to mention it's a split opinion on whether that is treason or government is doing treason against its own people
On August 11 2013 17:37 Emporium wrote: Wait, I am not sure how their is an argument on this.
If Snowden revealed real and pertinent information to the rest of the world, of illegal activities happening in the USA, then he can't be held accountable by that same government. As the natural reaction would be to respond to deny.
I think what is happening here is, that the US government, are causing alot of media attention on HIM, to try and muddy the fact; that they are and have been illegally working in the US and abroad very blatantly and consciously.(the title itself shows this, addressing Snowden and and not the fact the US Government is illegally working.)
So up until this point, we have to take the facts as they are, and not the possibilities that could be, as this will dilute the truth(or as close as we will ever see it) upon which we can judge and base our decisions on what is/was the correct decision by Snowden and thusly what our moral response should be.
If he was working for China, then if that is ever confirmed by him or by a tribunal, we take it into account.
Work purely off the facts and make judgements on those.
You can pretty much cut and paste that segment and include Snowden's name over Manning's. You can disagree on how similar Snowden and Manning are, but the segment still works for the most part.
If he's charged with espionage, then who was he spying for?
HE WAS WORKING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
Well, other than the part about the American people paying his salary.
But yeah, you can't trust those guys. Someone should keep an eye on them.
And yeah, that's how America treats its whistleblowers.
On August 11 2013 16:51 Thieving Magpie wrote: If you wish to break a law you disagree with then do so by bringing the case to court and having the arguments put into a public hearing. Running away to foreign countries does not put into question the law you are supposedly attempting to correct.
And it's preposterous to read a thread that boils down to people being okay that CEO's be given private information but be angry if that same information is shared by those CEO's as if Walmart knowing your every move is somehow better than Walmart and a random NSA agent knowing your every move.
walmart can't demand your data from other companies, NSA can. and bringing it to the court is a HUGE risk considering how much pressure the government is putting on companies and even directly intervening other countries' presidential flight.
Companies already sell data to each other in order to track and improve marketing tactics, plan buying trends, and predict product lines. They are simply adding one more vendor to their roster of places they send data to.
You don't change bad laws by running to a different country. Civil rights, slavery, voting rights, workers rights, etc... Was not won by running away to another country. It was won by people standing up to oppressors and forcing change.
I like snowden, I think what he revealed is important, but if he runs to a different country and sells government secrets then he simply reinforces the importance of NSA's job to protect the country and hence entrenches the policies he was attempting to break.
You don't fix laws by committing treason.
everywhere sells and track marketing tactics, but not if the government can map out your whole life by demanding data across all different industries and has the power to do what they want with those data. I think then our view point splits between whether snowden was correct in running to another country. I personally think he wasn't trying to sell any secrets, reason being he revealed the secrets AND actually had difficulty seeking asylum from other countries. You call that treason, I call that trying to stay alive. not to mention it's a split opinion on whether that is treason or government is doing treason against its own people
If snowden stayed, he would be trialed for information breech. Which would make the court case be about the validity of what NSA is doing.
Now that he ran to China and Russia, he will be tried for treason and selling government secrets; the NSA will never be put into question.
So instead of his whistle blowing being used to correct and adjust the current system, his running away means that the only legal actions that follow are ones of punishing someone for selling secrets to china/russia. That is my problem with what he did.
And like I said, I can't get mad at a company for adding one more vendor to their business intelligence department. Sure its very "big brother" but the only way to honestly stop it is to make it illegal for corporations to have Business Intelligence units.
On August 11 2013 15:44 LegalLord wrote: I think we shouldn't really play e-lawyer. A court would be best suited for deciding whether or not he is guilty, assuming he would ever stand trial instead of running from the US government.
The details make all the difference.
And the details is the fact that the information NSA and every other gov is collecting is not for the safety of the common human but to sustain and increase power of the gov has over the human. They do this by deepthroating the big banks.
Fact, or conjecture?
One of these two is what a court of law is actually based on. The other is what the e-lawyers that are either convicting or acquitting him of espionage are basing their decision on.
While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking.
If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US.
On August 12 2013 00:27 peacenl wrote: While legal ways sound perfect, some people in this thread don't seem to realize that once you sign with such an organization, they become even more immune for their employees screwing them over when they wish to reveal misdoings or internal policies. The larger encompassing problem is, you don't know such thing until you sign that very contract.
I've done a lot of research on this, and it basically boils down to the point where he didnt have any other choice other than to look away and do nothing but to allow complete secrecy of law breaking.
If you agree to break the law, even if the law is unjust, you should agree to be punished for doing so. Did MLK leave the United States to avoid having charges filed against him for his protests? No, he did not. And he would actually have groups that would grant him asylum based on moral grounds, rather than Snowden who only gets asylum as a "screw you" to the US.
EPT
