Posted on 04/21/2014 4:12:15 PM PDT by opentalk
And what “murder” did Snowden expose to Putin?
Sure it was all classified, but his initial dump related to an over-reach by El-Presidente on his spying against the American people. Blanket spying against the American people in violation of Constitutional protections.
None — it is a hypothetical question for establishing principles; namely: does a confidentiality agreement (e.g. classified operations
) extend to patently illegal actions? How about very questionable actions?
As a practical/real example (since you seem to have trouble with theory) consider Fast & Furious — the operation was trafficking firearms to Mexico, sometimes using known felons, in violation of treaty and arming the cartels (and providing legal protection to those to whom the arms were given), all of which is likely the clearest case of treason in a hundred years.
Would slapping a 'classified' stamp on the operation oblige all agents with knowledge thereof to remain silent? Or do they have a moral and/or legal obligation to act against its implementation even if it means violating the 'classified' status thereof?
If the BATF agents had[/have] an obligation to expose such illegal activities, then did not Snowden have such obligation to expose the illegal activities he witnessed?
tragic miscommunicationand that Extortion 17 was just a
tragic accidentand that Fast & Furious was just
a sting operation gone bad, no?
Committing a crime in defense of the law is still a crime.
First off I don’t believe anything this administration says, don’t accuse me of carrying their water!
You seem to be under the impression that Snowden was not telling our adversaries anything they could use against our nation. What evidence do you have of this? If he was not helping them then why first Red China then Russia? Would Putin waste his time with this guy if he wasn’t giving up “useful” info?
Why did he run to the Red Chinese first? Why not England? Canada? Columbia? Why did he only turn up in countries that are hostile to us? And why was he treated well in those countries?
Do you believe everything Putin says?
If you squawk like an feral government rat…
You seem to be under the impression that Snowden was not telling our adversaries anything they could use against our nation. What evidence do you have of this?
Simple: the complete lack of anything substantial from the he's a traitor, leaking classified documents
-squad — to include government officials presenting a case against Snowden. (i.e. they have produced nothing that shows how he has jeopardized legitimate operations — they do, however, show a lot of what the government is doing behind closed1 doors
is plainly contraconstitutional.)
If he was not helping them then why first Red China then Russia? Would Putin waste his time with this guy if he wasn’t giving up “useful” info?
For the PR: portrayal Russia as a better, more just, more humane nation. To get under Obama's thin skin. To provide a specter of knowledge.
There's a dozen reasons.
Why did he run to the Red Chinese first? Why not England? Canada? Columbia? Why did he only turn up in countries that are hostile to us? And why was he treated well in those countries?
England and Canada are right out due to extradition treaties — Russia and China are two countries which he had a reasonable chance of protection from being Brietbarted by the administration.
Do you believe everything Putin says?
Nope; but I believe my government even less — and they claim that Snowden is a traitor without offering anything more than pounding on the table
2.
1 — read as classified
.
2 — From the world of lawyering: if you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. And if you have neither, pound the table.
Russia as a better, more just, more humane nation
Do you really believe that? If so you are beyond hope.
Then you are saying that it is legally acceptable to have a no win situation
— where to act for, or against, or fail to act are all criminal acts?
What a nightmare world you must live in.
Relevant:
Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Good job on cutting out the context; the first portion of the sentence is: For the PR: portrayal [of].
And no, I don't belive PR has to be accurate — actually, I am rather suspicious that it's more favorable to be inaccurate.
Anyone remember the old days when “the rule of law” wasn’t a phrase that was rightfully mocked as a bad joke? You know, back in the day when committing purjury in front of congress would at least get you fired, if not indicted?
In a just world, Snowden would be making speeches to students and Clapper would be making license plates.
Actually, he was headed for Ecuador but got stuck in Russia when the US (rather stupidly) pulled his passport at just the wrong time, stranding him there.
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.