Obama administration charges NSA whistleblower Snowden with espionage

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Yes I will turn a blind eye for this case because I believe it is warranted when everything is taken into consideration. In matter of fact it doesn't really matter what I think because I am not china determing anything. I am speaking personal opinion and I have that right.

You can go ahead and overlook the corruption at the top of the usa government in favor of lambasting snowden and other worth whistleblowers. Just remember if not for people like him we would have obama acting as hitler 2 with massive wars, poverty, death and utter destruciton. Is that what you want or are you naive??

100% your right to turn a blind eye and glad you don't have any say over the law because in turning that blind eye you are no better than the Govt you rail against. You want to scream loud and clear when the govt ignores the laws of America but when the players doing so play for your "team" or meet your needs then it's ok. Seems pretty hypocritical .

It's funny you keep implying that I have in some way defended the president. That I am in some way overlooking anything. What I have consistently said is that Snowden has broken the law, he knows it, anyone that has or has ever had a clearance knows it. That is not up for debate, it's fact. You can make an argument that his doing so appears to be justified but it still doesn't change the fact that he did it.

Please though, keep implying that I am somehow naive for stating fact.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Here is the thing I am seeing: a lot of folks with military backgrounds, particularly with clearance, are against Snowden. The majority of his support comes from non military folks.

Of the man aims of our founding fathers, having a legal system that was accessible and understandable by the common man was among the most important. The shady, loosely played legal systems in Europe were despicable, and they wanted everyone to understand it. Therefore, one of the most important aspects is that the law is meant to be obvious. You aren't supposed to need a decade in school to understand it.

Of course, we are a long way from that. But my point is, if it seems like he did the right thing to what is considered a reasonable person, then it can legally be considered that he did the right thing, regardless of legal statute.

While I am not belittling anyones service here, it is suspect to me that the primary support for his guilt comes from that direction. Perhaps their viewpoint has been tainted by the military brainwashing apparatus (bootcamp and stiffly regimented life).

I dunno...but the dynamic is quite noticable.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Is it the right thing, if he is found out to be a Chinese spy?

Better yet, would you believe this Governments "proof", if they came up with it?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Here is the thing I am seeing: a lot of folks with military backgrounds, particularly with clearance, are against Snowden. The majority of his support comes from non military folks.

Of the man aims of our founding fathers, having a legal system that was accessible and understandable by the common man was among the most important. The shady, loosely played legal systems in Europe were despicable, and they wanted everyone to understand it. Therefore, one of the most important aspects is that the law is meant to be obvious. You aren't supposed to need a decade in school to understand it.

Of course, we are a long way from that. But my point is, if it seems like he did the right thing to what is considered a reasonable person, then it can legally be considered that he did the right thing, regardless of legal statute.

While I am not belittling anyones service here, it is suspect to me that the primary support for his guilt comes from that direction. Perhaps their viewpoint has been tainted by the military brainwashing apparatus (bootcamp and stiffly regimented life).

I dunno...but the dynamic is quite noticable.

So stating that he broke a law means I am against him?

How does that logic work where in every thread I have said if his story is found to be factual then he should be found guilty of the crimes he has committed (which can't be debated) which would in turn label him a criminal and he should be granted immunity.

Yup, you are right, I am against him with that statement.

AS for your declaration about people with a milclearance background seeing him as breaking the law..You are right because he did. Because anyone that has ever got clearance signed the same paperwork and agreed to the same standards and laws. It has nothing to do with being brainwashed or going to boot camp . No one held a gun to his head and said go get clearance. He willingly made the choice to go into that industry and in doing so he willingly agreed to follow the legal and applicable laws that govern it. I know though that means I am against him.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Is it the right thing, if he is found out to be a Chinese spy?

Better yet, would you believe this Governments "proof", if they came up with it?

If he is spying for the Chinese would be a different matter, separate from his allegations.

First question is, are his allegations true? If so, then that needs to be dealt with.

After that, his spy status can be considered. And it would totally hinge on the truth of what he is alleging. If it is true, then the state is an enemy of the People. If false, then he is an enemy of The People.

reply to post by opethPA


To be honest I hadn't read much of what you have said thus far. But if his contract required him to execute activities that were unlawful, then the contract was null and void.

You take that contract very seriously But omit the need for the other party in the contract to exercise their portion in good faith? Why?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Is it the right thing, if he is found out to be a Chinese spy?

Better yet, would you believe this Governments "proof", if they came up with it?

If he is spying for the Chinese would be a different matter, separate from his allegations.

First question is, are his allegations true? If so, then that needs to be dealt with.

After that, his spy status can be considered. And it would totally hinge on the truth of what he is alleging. If it is true, then the state is an enemy of the People. If false, then he is an enemy of The People.

Well said.

Personally, I want to know if my freedom is in jeopardy. I really didn't need Snowden to spill the beans though. What he said just confirmed my own suspicions.

reply to post by opethPA


How is it espionage when snowden discussed the methods of surveillance against americans by nato intelligence? If he was providing american military secrets to the chineese government then that would be considered espionage.

Use common sense if you have any! You are basically putting contract law of security clearances above the fact that nato spies against its own citizens and to be truthful its sick.

He used foreign media because american media could not be trusted. How many times has american media lately divulged corruption cases, especially after the patriot act? When the government has been spying on the media as well, cheating tea party members in terms of taxation, etc.

reply to post by sonnny1



Pretty much. Since the Patriot Act was passed, it has been the talk of this town.

Question i guess is, what will be done with it? We are already seeing our mlitary apparatus falling in line behind their government. At least in this thread.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by opethPA

 

To be honest I hadn't read much of what you have said thus far. But if his contract required him to execute activities that were unlawful, then the contract was null and void.

You take that contract very seriously But omit the need for the other party in the contract to exercise their portion in good faith? Why?

Because the law around the unauthorized release of classified information does not deal with the content of information but rather the act of releasing any classified information in an unauthorized manner. Again I have never once said the Govt is not guilty. I have never once said anything other then reality and fact on this case. If I would have release something benign like say an access number or even the name of a project I could have faced penalties, job loss or jail time. I would have expected any one of those three things if I would have released classified information.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yeah.

Not only that, not holding those who are in charge, up to those same oaths.

Or does the Commander-in-chief not need an oath or be held up to a higher principle?

Its sad that the ones trampling on our rights, are not held to the same laws we all have to uphold. A good house cleaning is in order, brother.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by opethPA

 

How is it espionage when snowden discussed the methods of surveillance against americans by nato intelligence? If he was providing american military secrets to the chineese government then that would be considered espionage.

Use common sense if you have any! You are basically putting contract law of security clearances above the fact that nato spies against its own citizens and to be truthful its sick.

He used foreign media because american media could not be trusted. How many times has american media lately divulged corruption cases, especially after the patriot act? When the government has been spying on the media as well, cheating tea party members in terms of taxation, etc.

When did I say it was espionage?

So again you are saying ignore the law when it meets your needs/agenda but when the Govt does it then its wrong?

Since you have never had a clearance then you won't understand what you sign and agree to so it's understandable that you somehow think I am the bad guy , or was it naive, or was it lacking common sense, or whatever weak insult you came up with.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


thanks, bfft.

reply to post by opethPA


Except if the information you released was of an unlawful nature (i.e., in violation of the Constitution). No law, no contract, no agreement can subvert the constitution. It doesn't matter what the contract intended, or what kind of information it is protecting. If that informatation relates to a violation of the Constitution, then releasing it is not only lawful, but the duty of any person.

YOu were brainwashed into believing that nonsense. Why would you want to allow yourself to be bound to keeping dirty secrets from The People that your bosses are supposed to answer to? Did we learn nothing from the Nazi trials?

And this, my friends, is why I fear our military. And why I call for it to be dismantled entirely.

How can telling the truth be against the law?

He's a true patriot in my book.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by opethPA

 

Except if the information you released was of an unlawful nature (i.e., in violation of the Constitution). No law, no contract, no agreement can subvert the constitution. It doesn't matter what the contract intended, or what kind of information it is protecting. If that informatation relates to a violation of the Constitution, then releasing it is not only lawful, but the duty of any person.

YOu were brainwashed into believing that nonsense. Why would you want to allow yourself to be bound to keeping dirty secrets from The People that your bosses are supposed to answer to? Did we learn nothing from the Nazi trials?

And this, my friends, is why I fear our military. And why I call for it to be dismantled entirely.

Awesome..I forget what I wanted to eat for dinner..Can you tell me because apparently you know everything about me. Maybe you can tell me what I should wear to work on Monday. Maybe you should tell me what I am going to do this weekend for fun.

Blind following of anything is scary. People that are willing to throw aside the law because it adds to their Snowden hero worship are no different than people blindly calling him a traitor. As a matter of fact I am sure if you asked him if he broke the law he would say "yes but I feel it was the correct thing" Which is essentially what I have said all along.

As for your ignorant statements about me.
I wasn't brainwashed into anything.
I entered that industry by my own actions and I left it by my own actions.
I was never in the military.
As I have said multiple times if his story is factual then he is guilty of breaking the law and should be granted immunity.

reply to post by opethPA


And then after he is granted immunity give him the medal of honor as well, and then go after the people who wrongfully classified that information. Lets give incentive to everyone who knows they are protecting dirty secrets the courage to come forward. Are you ok with this?

Guilty, immunity, medal of honor (in sequence)

Just a general FYI here guys, since the Media apparently doesn't want to repeat it much for some reason, which is odd since usually we know the full background of someone by now in pure repetitive blasts of it. He absolutely, without question knew and understood his security clearance.

He was in Training for U.S. Special forces to start, then an actual peripheral employee to the NSA for an on-campus office at the University of Maryland.

Then a direct payroll employee for the C.I.A., where he states elsewhere in the linked article, he knows the safe house locations and officer ID information world wide. Probably not the wisest thing to have said... but I digress.

It's last that he became a contract worker and actually worked more than one contract/company over the period.

Initial Background reports and context info Snowden stated

Come to think of it, it really is kinda odd they don't mention the above much in the media, but make him out to sound like a flunky at times.