Posted on 06/10/2013 7:31:41 AM PDT by maggief
Snowden specifically stated he knew about all sorts of clandestine operations that he did NOT release to the public. As you wrote, his leak did not “jeopardize lives and missions.” However, the part about him not being in the military is irrelevant. A person doesn’t have to be in the military to commit treason.
treason: “Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.”
Based on what we know, I don’t think Snowden acted to aid our enemies. However, I don’t like the fact he’s in China and wonder where that leads.
In my opinion, a whistleblower only deserves protection when they reveal corruption and/or lawbreaking within an organization. In this case, the government is violating the 4th Amendment. That’s why Bradley Manning is a traitor, while Snowden is a hero.
After all, who broke all this? The Guardian of New York City or Washington D.C.? Hardly. That alone speaks volumes.
He tried to give the scoop to the WaPo. But they dithered waiting for clearance from their handlers in the Obama Admin before reporting the story. So he went to the Guardian.
Who was Snowden supposed to trust with the information?
Eric Holder - NO
Democratically held Senate - NO
A RHINO in Congress - NO
FBI - NO
MSM - NO
CIA - NO
State Department - NO
The President - HAHAHA
Every single one of the avenues for reporting egregious acts either are compromised are will lead to Congress doing nothing about it. Or RHINOs will blast the Rand Paul and Ted Cruz types as being wackos birds. Or the MSM would have mocked him and his “proper channel” or called them racists and told them their tinfoil hats were too tight.
Another thought, maybe he didn’t go through proper channels because he knew those proper channels were also compromised.
A blanket NSA order violates the 4th Amendment. The other situations entail due process and I do not have a problem with such.
I agree with you in principle. I disagree as I currently understand the law. If the NSA obtained the permission of the intelligence oversight committee (our elected representatives) and the special court appointed for this purpose such activity is LEGAL. Bush approved much of this structure.
The problem is where do we draw the line. Prior to the war on terror, I believe the NSA functioned under the same rules as the CIA. They operated largely outside of our shores with the exception of folks in the U.S. that called certain countries or numbers. We now have confirmation the NSA is data-mining all Americans and it is disturbing.
However, we must understand the legality of it. If Congress did not know this program was illegal. If Congress knew about this (I think they did) it was not illegal. These agencies are not dumb and there are clearly firewalls still in place.
The real question and danger would be if an enforcement agency, such as the FBI, be able to access such information to use for criminal prosecution and to further investigations. At this time, after seeing Holder squirm for signing off on an affidavit to obtain the same information Snowden says the NSA has, it appears there is still a firewall in place.
This debate has been inevitable as it has lagged behind the technology. I would guess you and I agree about the importance of our constitutional rights and we are likely on the same side at the end of the day. However, to further the debate we all have to understand the importance and responsibilities of congressional oversight. I am guessing both parties got this one wrong, but I want to know if this information was used against Americans in violation of the constitution. That would be scary.
“Some will think he’s a hero and some will think he’s a traitor, just like they did with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.”
That is a false and deceptive comparison. Therosenbergs were Communists who knowingly served on behalf of the Soviet Union. Ed Snowden served on behalf of the U.S. citizens to fulfill his oath of loyalty to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It remains to be seen whether or not his judgement about conflicting loyalties between his duty to protect and defend the Constitution versus his duty of loyalty to his employment contract can be substantiated. His act challenges Congress and all U.S. Citizens to act to effectively uphold the Constitution by holding the Administration and members of Congress accountable fo their own actions and/or inactions.
Who is the traitor, Snowden or the Federal Government officials in the Administration/s and Congress?
Bolton’s perspective and rationale is short sighted. Snowden is not acting, he’s reacting; where is Bolton’s simultaneous condemnation of the treasonous conduct of the those who swore to uphold the Constitution and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic? Snowden’s treasonous whistle blowing is overshadowed and mitigated to an extent by the even greater treasonous behavior he has exposed. C’mon John boy, you gotta be better than that.
The NSA has traditionally been separate from other agencies such as the FBI. The FBI still has to get a court order, warrant, or administrative summons/subpoena to obtain phone records. They did that in the case of Rosen and the media investigation for leaks.
This tells me the firewalls are still in place given that those investigations were the highest priority. There is no way Holder would have signed off on the Rosen affidavit if the DOJ could access the information through other secret means.
**********
Interesting.
It’s the way the Internet works. If you have access to the servers, you can grab the packets. If you can access enough servers you can guarantee you get all of someone’s traffic, as the only difference is what server it is traversing when. Whether you can decrypt anything secured is another matter, but I’d expect NSA has the horsepower for that.
+++++++++++
I think you are right about this. But I still question the server access. Do we really believe that the NSA can connect to the Gmail servers, for example, and continuously archive that data including the content. Technically they could. Do they? I doubt it.
But if they are then this is truly the scandal that most Freepers believe it is.
Snowden and Manning are not lionized in the media because they have exposed a massive failure in the Oval Office. If these two morons had done their work during Bush’s presidency, the NY Slimes would be making them front page heros.
By the way, there is a HUGE difference between what the Clown is doing and Bush’s tracking of foreign calls.
The media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) keep repeating the lie “Bush did it too!”
What people don’t realize is that “I’m not doing anything wrong”, and forgive me for quoting, depends on what the definition of “wrong” is. “I see you used to eat your share of take-out pizzas back in the 2020’s, Mr. Norseman. That makes it a little tougher to give you the ok for your heart surgery when I have a list of many people who were eating much healthier during that time, I’m sure you understand.”
4th Amendment: “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.”
Seems straightforward to me...
One point - if google and yahoo were not allowed to collect and maintain such information (i.e. - internet privacy) the government would not have the data to tap into.
However, google and yahoo are worth billions of dollars and they are powerful lobbying organizations who have purchased lots of influence with our representatives. If google and yahoo were not allowed to track us and sell targeted advertisements they would not be worth billions and the government - on their own - would have to tap into that information themselves.
Just a point to ponder and one reason why internet privacy is such an important argument.
History judges otherwise.
You can add the media—broadcast and print, national and localized, to the treason rolls. The fake journalists in America bowed their knees in submission to an obvious know-nothing....and refused to give him any scrutiny. Instead, they worshiped him.
>>In my opinion, a whistleblower only deserves protection when they reveal corruption and/or lawbreaking within an organization. In this case, the government is violating the 4th Amendment. That’s why Bradley Manning is a traitor, while Snowden is a hero.<<
It’s more likely that Snowden is both a whistleblower and a traitor. There is nothing that says that you can’t be both. It’s entirely possible that he did serious damage to our national security while simultaneously blowing the whistle on government practices that have to be stopped.
This is one of those issues where one’s parents would usually say “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Too many people (on both sides, I suspect) are making up their minds whether Snowden belongs in jail or on a pedestal based upon their personal political beliefs.
What about the law? Not relevant? Do we get to ignore it when we feel like it? Much as we continually accuse the “other side” of doing?
boxlunch: “After the latest IRS and DOJ scandals how can you have any doubts that they could and would use it against American citizens and most likely already are?”
Let’s just say I gave Bolton the benefit of doubt for this particular discussion, but I’m with you otherwise. Anyone who thinks these capabilities won’t be turned against Americans—if not already so—is naive at best.
“Snowden’s whistle blowing did not jeopardize lives and missions, “
Really? You can say that with any confidence whatsoever? At best it is a series of trade-offs.”
Yes I can actually Please name the jeopardized lives and missions. As Mr. Snowden spoke only in generalities that the whole damn U.S. population was being data mined, who was being put in jeopardy? Hmmmmm?
The British thought the same of Paul Revere.
Would Bolton say the same of Schlindler? The founding fathers? My guess is that given a strict definition, then yes, they would be traitors as well.
Bottom line: This is a war, and Bolton is announcing he’s on the wrong side. He could change his mind.
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.