Posted on 10/12/2014 9:09:28 AM PDT by Enlightened1
The New Yorker Festival presents Edward Snowden in conversation with Jane Mayer.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
“This guy didn’t go to a Senator, a Congressman, the President, a Judge, a police agency of any sort.
He spilled it to our enemies.”
Exactly right.
I have no problem with going after the problematic players at the NSA or the CIA. Until we do, I’m not going to take a pass on going after a known traitor.
You get who you can, and move on to the next.
Where do you draw the line? Oh we shouldn’t go after 1, 10, 100, 1000, until we go after everyone. I think you go after every individual you uncover, even if it is a Snowden.
This guy screwed up.
Thanks Inkie. That’s what makes sense to us. Others don’t quite see it that way. I think they focus on the NSA and want to ignore the rest of it.
I think that’s a big mistake. You probably do to.
Take care.
No doubt but there are ones far worse getting a free pass. No politician or US news media would have helped snowden. Excuse no. Just the facts.
If he would have developed information specific to the NSA spying domestically, I think he could have gotten the support of Washington Post and a number of other papers. He could have gotten the support of a number of Conservative politicians.
What was taking place was unconstitutional.
Then if they went after him the American Public would have been furious.
You start introducing treasonous activity, and it prevents a lot of people getting behind him.
I've gotten into arguments over this: some people assert that if there was a classified operation with the goal of flat-out murdering citizens that to reveal this in violation of its "classified" nature would be the greater sin
, utterly ignoring the 5th and 6th amendments.
The greater amount of materials are technical in nature and constitute material support of our nation’s enemies. His disclosure or Constitutional invasions of privacy are a small part and give a seeming basis of defense. The problem with that approach is that it disregards the nature of the greater portion of the stolen materials and his methods of disclosure.
And here lies our big disagreement: I view the government violating the Constitution as a bigger threat than any of Snowden's actions precisely because the citizenry cannot legitimately* fight back when their own Government tries to crush them. — the foreigner invading is an obvious existential danger, when those in authority are evil is a much more subtle danger.
* Granted, the Declaration of Independence is clear in its construction: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and provides precedence. However, it is also true that any attempt to avail ourselves this legal responsibility will be painted as sedition, rebellion, and/or treason.
I cannot tell you Snowden’s motivation, but only judge his actions. His actions are not those of a concerned patriot who puts country over self, but a coward who is willing to compromise his country for personal gain.
Hm, that's funny — I level that same accusation against the Republican party.
Everyone with clearance knows the definition:
Top Secret classification level “shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
Oh, you mean something like Obama's identification records?
After all, if those were actually released and proved the Birthers correct, then there'd be huge swathes of government officials that would be in big trouble, enough that removing all of them at once would likely disrupt government operations.
Traitor....to who? The government?
As far as I'm concerned, a supreme court decision against government spying on law abiding American citizens would be a HUGE win for liberty.
Guess’n that's not important to some folks.
No, Roberts will rule that it's a tax. [/sarc]
But seriously, if you think that this should-be slam dunk against Government overreach will be one you haven't been paying attention to things like Kelo, NFIB v. Sebelius, Kentucky v. King, etc. — There's a long history of the court ignoring the actual words of the Constitution in order to bring about the decision they want; here's a prime example from Schenck v. United States:
We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. […] When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.vs
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Translated:
because we're at war the Constitution doesn't apply.
As I have stated previously on this forum, I was a career NSA officer, serving most of my 33 year career overseas. We were on the tip of the spear. If anyone would’ve been aware of domestic spying it would’ve been us. Two weeks prior to retirement, we were warned by HQS that any collection, recording or reporting of US persons would result in dismissal or prosecution. I don’t know what Snowden spilled, but from what I’ve been able to piece together, it could’ve been disastrous. I’ve been out of now for 17 years and am completely out of the loop. One person I know who is employed there tells me that the work force is furious with this clown and would like to see Snowden drawn and quartered. Couple Snowden with Obama, and the Agency’s morale is in the commode.
w
One little thing you’ve missed.
Congress has not declared war. This executive has not followed the law as prescribed by the constitution.
It will go before the supreme court and the American people will win. A federal judge has already ruled so, it will be the SC upholding this decision.
Ax, the problem for us lay people, is that we get some information and assume the worst. Supporting statements seemed to dribble out over time. I was under the impression that it was a certainty that the NSA was collecting data inappropriately.
Frankly, I would be very happy to be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. So far I haven’t been.
I happen to think the NSA and the CIA are agencies we need. I’m not seeking to see either organization shut down, consolidated, or severely hampered. They have an important job to do. I want the job done.
I also want citizen to be free from monitoring unless their is a specific need. I am also willing to allow an agency to jump the gun before getting permission, if it’s a fluid situation supporting the specific need. All I’ve got to say, is that if they do jump the gun, they better be able to support it. Otherwise heads should roll, and prosecutions should result.
The NSA is a massive enigma for most of us. We as a people tend to be highly suspicious of government. That is healthy unless it gets to the point that it is self-destructive. In some instances I think it gets to that point. In some instances I think government agencies go too far also.
I consider this to be a healthy political game, both sides pushing for their interests.
Over the last ten years, perhaps a little more, I have noticed a massive amount of information regarding internet sights and individuals being targeted, or actually even helping collect data.
I’m not sure how you reassure the public on matters like this.
If it weren’t for your experience, you might be a lot more ready to suspect the NSA or CIA.
We don’t have your experience, so we’re naturally going to be more skeptical.
In a nation like ours, there is always going to be friction on this issue.
It’s healthy for the public to be skeptical to a point.
My view of Snowden is closer to the NSA view. I’ve got to tell you though, I’m not liking what I am hearing about the NSA these days.
To say the least, it has a massive public relations problem right now.
No, I didn't miss it — that decision is from WWI, but it's the you can't yell fire in a crowded
decision… meaning it's been used as precedent for plenty of non-war infringements.
This executive has not followed the law as prescribed by the constitution.
No, they haven't.
But then again the War on Drugs is effectively the War on The Bill of Rights. (Link to an enumeration I wrote up; 9 of the 10 have been damaged by the War on Drugs.)
And the War on Terror is a convenient excuse to reduce privacy to nothing.
If they were to declare war, it'd be on us.
It will go before the supreme court and the American people will win. A federal judge has already ruled so, it will be the SC upholding this decision.
I think you place too much faith in the USSC — there's four citations of USSC cases in that enumeration post, and that's barely scratching the surface.
I don’t think we disagree, inasmuch as I believe the danger from our own government is existential. The problem with Snowden is that he is a popular Robin Hood, and I don’t claim he is a traitor for disclosing unconstitutional actions.
However, those actions so not change the fact that he also committed treason by giving our enemies top secret technical information that puts our nation at risk. Another’s crimes (our government’s) does not exonerate Snowden.
I am no longer a Republican and you can see how well I’m liked by the GOPe cheerleaders here if you read some of my history. I am adamantly opposed to the GOPe and it’s treachery.
I don’t believe that birther records would make any difference. In my opinion, they are and always have been a side show. The Clinton administration was bouyed tremendously from Monicagate when crimes of espionage, usurpation of enumerated powers and murder were completely ignored. The same is going on today. Snowden’s revelations don’t come close to discovering the truth of the corruption.
I don’t pretend to know everything that goes on; I can only comment on my experience. The people with whom I worked were a patriotic, hard working lot. We knew the rules and played by them. We had a lot more pressing business to carry out, not reading people’s faxed lunch orders to the deli around the corner. And it’s true: if you work on the inside, you have a totally different outlook.
Ax, I can understand that. I appreciate your comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.