Ron Paul on Edward Snowden’s indictment

Did not see this in search thought I would share with you all What the good doctor's take is on this ridiculous indictment.

I personally agree with his take. Those who are awake will see the truth in his statement. We the people have been declared the enemy.

My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.

Link

All the rhetoric on the lamestream media is about whether Mr. Snowden is a traitor. Yet none of the talking heads are talking about the facts. What the NSA has been doing is criminal. I do not care how much or how little data they are collecting on everyone. It is a total breach of our rights, period.
No matter how much it is touted. NOBODY can guarantee your security, especially the government. Security is a total illusion, our planet is and always will be a dangerous place. The only person you can or should rely on for your security is yourself. Which is why the second amendment is so important.

The following video is an interview from RT with Ben Swann with his take on the media handling of Snowden. He is spot on as always. It's nice to see facts actually being touted instead of just opinion. enjoy!

A gun does not protect you from a plane crashing into your building.

A gun cannot protect you from a bomb in a car.

A gun cannot protect you from an IED

Terrorists don't go around announcing they are terrorists.

And pro 2nd Amendment people only see the use of their 2nd Amendment rights to kill their fellow countrymen anyway. Feeling their enemy are Constitutionally elected citizens, and feeling that by killing them, and robbing the public of their Constitutional right to choose the government representatives they want, they are somehow protecting freedom.

Hah you are right a bomb, plane or ied would do the trick. further proving my point that security is a complete farce, and you would give up your liberties for such an illusion. A gun does protect my home and my personage from intruders though.

And pro 2nd Amendment people only see the use of their 2nd Amendment rights to kill their fellow countrymen anyway. Feeling their enemy are Constitutionally elected citizens, and feeling that by killing them, and robbing the public of their Constitutional right to choose the government representatives they want, they are somehow protecting freedom.

I like how you paint all people who believe in the right to bear arms as psychopaths who want to shoot elected officials.That is a well thought out and reasonable argument.
I care not what country said person is from who would harm my property or personage they would be dealt with the same.
Where in my OP did i say anything about harming a " Constitutionally elected citizen"? My point was you cannot trust anyone other than yourself for security. Your comprehension of what you read seems to be lacking. You may want to crack a book or 2 and put the leftist rags down for a while.

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
Did not see this in search thought I would share with you all What the good doctor's take is on this ridiculous indictment.

I personally agree with his take. Those who are awake will see the truth in his statement. We the people have been declared the enemy.

My understanding is that espionage means giving secret or classified information to the enemy. Since Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal (or confirm) that the US Government views you and me as the enemy.

Link

All the rhetoric on the lamestream media is about whether Mr. Snowden is a traitor. Yet none of the talking heads are talking about the facts. What the NSA has been doing is criminal. I do not care how much or how little data they are collecting on everyone. It is a total breach of our rights, period.
No matter how much it is touted. NOBODY can guarantee your security, especially the government. Security is a total illusion, our planet is and always will be a dangerous place. The only person you can or should rely on for your security is yourself. Which is why the second amendment is so important.

The following video is an interview from RT with Ben Swann with his take on the media handling of Snowden. He is spot on as always. It's nice to see facts actually being touted instead of just opinion. enjoy!

edit on 27-6-2013 by Privateinquotations because: typos

Whether he was morally right or wrong in leaking information is largely irrelevant. He violated signed agreements and broke the law, and just like anyone else, he deserves to be held accountable for doing so. I dont put him on a pedestal above others and I dont scream "Kill him!" at the top of my lungs - I am looking at this from a purely legal standpoint.

reply to post by flyswatter

Whether he was morally right or wrong in leaking information is largely irrelevant. He violated signed agreements and broke the law, and just like anyone else, he deserves to be held accountable for doing so. I dont put him on a pedestal above others and I dont scream "Kill him!" at the top of my lungs - I am looking at this from a purely legal standpoint.

from a purely legal standpoint you're completely wrong. it is illegal to use a contract to keep secret illegal activities.

if a deeds restricted community made you sign a non-disclosure agreement so that you wouldn't talk about what goes on inside the community to those who don't live there, you would have to comply UNLESS the activities that someone carried out are illegal.

you couldn't say "the non-disclosure agreement i signed prevents me from testifying in a murder case" even though you had witnessed the whole thing. if you tried that you'd face jail time.

reply to post by flyswatter


The government IS breaking the law! how does this become about the messenger? There is no doubt the spying on Americans has been, and is happening. This is a crime, period!

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Whether he was morally right or wrong in leaking information is largely irrelevant. He violated signed agreements and broke the law, and just like anyone else, he deserves to be held accountable for doing so. I dont put him on a pedestal above others and I dont scream "Kill him!" at the top of my lungs - I am looking at this from a purely legal standpoint.

from a purely legal standpoint you're completely wrong. it is illegal to use a contract to keep secret illegal activities.

if a deeds restricted community made you sign a non-disclosure agreement so that you wouldn't talk about what goes on inside the community to those who don't live there, you would have to comply UNLESS the activities that someone carried out are illegal.

you couldn't say "the non-disclosure agreement i signed prevents me from testifying in a murder case" even though you had witnessed the whole thing. if you tried that you'd face jail time.

Well, first of all, what he disclosed has not yet been determined to be illegal. Until such time, your argument is completely invalid. Second, what he signed has far more reach than a simple NDA. I practically have to sign my life away every 5 years to maintain my clearance level, and I'm pretty sure that his clearance was a step above mine. I am very familiar with the paperwork that he had to sign at the very minimum.

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
reply to post by flyswatter

 

The government IS breaking the law! how does this become about the messenger? There is no doubt the spying on Americans has been, and is happening. This is a crime, period!

When that is legally determined to be against the law, make that argument. Until then, it doesnt matter.

Two wrongs do not make a right. I'm not saying the government is right in what they are doing. I am not attempting to make any argument of how proper that is. What I am saying is that regardless of what the government is doing, Snowden should be held accountable for his actions just as much as anyone else should.

reply to post by flyswatter

Well, first of all, what he disclosed has not yet been determined to be illegal. Until such time, your argument is completely invalid. Second, what he signed has far more reach than a simple NDA. I practically have to sign my life away every 5 years to maintain my clearance level, and I'm pretty sure that his clearance was a step above mine. I am very familiar with the paperwork that he had to sign at the very minimum.

the NSA programs are quite illegal; one can determine this through an examination of the 4th amendment. a judge is not needed to rule the surveillance programs unconstitutional.

the law is clear in regards to contracts, no matter the scope.

I read somewhere yesterday Snowden had the info on a couple of hard rives and the Russians now have them.Make what you will with that but a don't believe you will see this man in an extradition country and may not ever leave Russia.

reply to post by flyswatter

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

it's really not that complicated. it seems the NSA has wanted to re-imagine the 4th amendment for quite awhile, as this 2001 memo suggets

reply to post by TDawg61


We may not. The fact remains the NSA is committing crimes against the people of the united states. The truth is out. It matters not whether you choose to acknowledge these facts. They remain facts. Our rights shall not be infringed.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Well, first of all, what he disclosed has not yet been determined to be illegal. Until such time, your argument is completely invalid. Second, what he signed has far more reach than a simple NDA. I practically have to sign my life away every 5 years to maintain my clearance level, and I'm pretty sure that his clearance was a step above mine. I am very familiar with the paperwork that he had to sign at the very minimum.

the NSA programs are quite illegal; one can determine this through an examination of the 4th amendment. a judge is not needed to rule the surveillance programs unconstitutional.

the law is clear in regards to contracts, no matter the scope.

If you are going under the assumption that this sort of thing would be protected by the whistleblower laws, you are incorrect. Federal whistleblower laws protect those that report illegal activity, however they do not protect those that make the conscious choice to spill state secrets to the general public, both foreign and domestic. What he did made a splash, but he did it in the wrong way if he wanted to maintain his job and/or freedom. The job he obviously wasnt worried about.

reply to post by flyswatter


Are you still trying to deny what is a fact? Whether they crucify Snowden or not, what the NSA is doing is illegal. How many times does it need said? You want to prove the law but you cannot see the law before you.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

it's really not that complicated. it seems the NSA has wanted to re-imagine the 4th amendment for quite awhile, as this 2001 memo suggets

I'll leave it up to others to determine, as I dont get paid NEARLY enough to make those kinds of choices for anybody

My personal opinion, yeah. Their snooping goes a bit too far. I see both sides of the argument, but I think the line needs to be drawn a bit further back than where it is right now.

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Are you still trying to deny what is a fact? Whether they crucify Snowden or not, what the NSA is doing is illegal. How many times does it need said? You want to prove the law but you cannot see the law before you.

Some say crucify Snowden and hang him by his toes, but I'm not of that mindset. I simply say that he broke the law and he should face the stated consequences for it. I dont see it as "espionage" but I do see it as wrong.

Even if what the NSA is doing is illegal, it does not excuse him doing what he did in the manner that he did it. I'm not going to forgive one sin just because it reports another.

reply to post by flyswatter


For what purpose do we need to further sacrifice liberty? The government surely cannot protect you! Call 911 now see how fast it takes police to arrive. The illusion of security will not protect you from the reality of our world my friend. You must be responsible for yourself alone.

Originally posted by Privateinquotations
reply to post by flyswatter

 

For what purpose do we need to further sacrifice liberty? The government surely cannot protect you! Call 911 now see how fast it takes police to arrive. The illusion of security will not protect you from the reality of our world my friend. You must be responsible for yourself alone.

If the only thing that he had done was spill about the fact that the government was snooping on its own people, I would have a bit more sympathy for the guy. But the glossed-over eyes of many people fail to realize that what he did was FAR beyond that. Set the whole self-snooping issue aside ... what he did by copying documents to non-secure media, taking it out of facility, taking it overseas, disseminating it to non-cleared officials ... he was also in the wrong for those things. Even if you were to say he's OK on the self-snooping issue, he's done a pretty good job of screwing himself in other aspects and he deserves to face the consequences for those actions, just as I would if I were to do the same.

reply to post by flyswatter

I simply say that he broke the law and he should face the stated consequences for it. I dont see it as "espionage" but I do see it as wrong.

i've already explained that he did not break the law.

Even if what the NSA is doing is illegal, it does not excuse him doing what he did in the manner that he did it. I'm not going to forgive one sin just because it reports another.

really? what if others in the NSA had tried the normal means to fix the unconstitutional surveillance programs, but failed? because that has already happened.

what other option is there when all attempts to fix the system from within have failed?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by flyswatter

 

I simply say that he broke the law and he should face the stated consequences for it. I dont see it as "espionage" but I do see it as wrong.

i've already explained that he did not break the law.

Even if what the NSA is doing is illegal, it does not excuse him doing what he did in the manner that he did it. I'm not going to forgive one sin just because it reports another.

really? what if others in the NSA had tried the normal means to fix the unconstitutional surveillance programs, but failed? because that has already happened.

what other option is there when all attempts to fix the system from within have failed?

And I will say again, he absolutely did break the law. As I said in the post above, even if you set aside information related to the NSA's snooping activities in the United States, there are still a number of things that he did that were wrong. Even if you were you completely clear him of anything related to the snooping, he's still in a world of hurt. The snooping stuff was not the only thing that he stole and leaked, thats the point.