Posted on 07/01/2013 8:30:29 AM PDT by USS Johnston
Former President George W. Bush has weighed in on the Edward Snowden saga, telling CNN the former National Security Agency contractor threatened the security of U.S. citizens by leaking information about the surveillance program his administration created after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.
"I know he damaged the country," Bush said in an interview from Zambia, where he and his wife, Laura, are on a humanitarian mission. "The Obama administration will deal with it. I think he damaged the security of the country."
Like President Barack Obama, Bush deflected criticism of the spy program.
"I put the program in place to protect the country, and one of the certainties is civil liberties were guaranteed," Bush said in the interview...
Bush also refused to criticize his successor. "It doesn't do any good," he said. "It's a hard job. He has plenty on his agenda and it's difficult. [A] former president doesn't need to make it harder."
The White House said Obama will meet Bush on Tuesday in Tanzania...
He added: "You know, ultimately history will judge the decisions that I made. And I won't be around because it's going to take a while for the objective historians to show up. So I'm pretty comfortable with it. I did what I did."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
What of an American Stasi operating under the fog of so-called "security" who secretly spies on its own citizenry illegally and unconstitutionally? What of a network of those who get compensated to illegally harvest and compile personal information that have nothing to do with the "security" of the USA?
And btw -- can you cite exactly what "military secrets" Snowden has "sold"?
Have you ANY sense of outrage that Snowden's revelations have exposed 0bama' Administration as one that ignores, violates and mocks the US Constitution? And that Bush SUPPORTS that violation and mockery?
I stand corrected.
By the way, please note that I am not arguing that it is justifiable because other people have done it.
It actually is not justifiable.
Are there constitutional violations of the US Constitution?
Again, just because you think that something is unconstitutional does not make it so.
You have yet to explain why it is unconstitutional for a company to voluntarily give to the police information that was voluntarily given to it.
"It's unconstitutional because I say it is!" is not very convincing.
You mean you need the 4th Amendment explained to you? Would crayon suffice?
You are a pro-Police Statist, pure and simple. There is not a single iota of proof that you care about the destruction US Constitution, nor the oaths therein, nor principles and tenets of the Founding Fathers, nor the integrity of this Republic.
Now go away, sir. Far, far away.
I completely concur with your observations and sentiments.
We need to discover that person and get a third party formed. Those phonies who pat each other on the back should be buried under a Conservative Party landslide.
HEAR HEAR!
Again, there are no laws that prevent the police from gathering information.
Nor does the constitution forbid citizens from giving the police legally obtained information if the police ask for it.
can you cite exactly what "military secrets" Snowden has "sold"?
He provided evidence of the US military's surveillance of Chinese government communications to Red China and provided them with a list of compromised IP addresses.
In return he received, at the very least, safe passage to Russia.
Because it bears repeating.
America has become so weakened that it will be an easy task to fold it in with the New World Order.
That appears to be the sad case, doesn't it? The day George H. Bush slapped Bill Klintoon on the back was bad enough; Now that George W. Bush has piped up and supported 0bama's unconstitutional secret Police State surveillance exposes the entire charade.
I knew that Bush and his brand of "compassionate conservatism" (i.e. big government conservatism) was going to be a dud from day one. It was a given that we'd get the Patriot Act, TARP, amnesty for illegals, No Child Left Behind, etc. By all means vote for him (or for McCain and Romney against Obama) as the lesser evil when compared to Gore, in the same way that being a paraplegic is better than being a quadriplegic. What I can't understand is the mindset that does so with enthusiasm and continues to defend and admire him. I guess it's kind of like the paraplegic who counts his blessings for still having the use of his arms and starts to see paraplegia itself as a good thing.
What do you make of Russia denying Snowden asylum? I'm not sure what card Putin is playing, but it's pretty obvious that the information Snowden has isn't particularly valuable to Russia or any other foreign country (other than as an embarassment to the US government), otherwise they'd be fighting over him. His goal was to make his information public anyway, not to sell it to Russian intelligence.
I know how it works.
You apparently do not, since you believe that a voluntary exchange of information between the police and a third party is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
It is not.
It never has been.
"All the world is a stage."
It's the same hero-worship and admiration of cultural icons of the Entertainment business; A Cult of Personality based on fictitious acts and portrayals. Both those on the Left and Right are susceptible and guilty of falling prey to the deception.
Yes, perception trumps reality. All it takes is a little red meat rhetoric and conservative-sounding gestures, and all is forgiven. Add to that our sad state of affairs where things have gotten so bad that people are willing to desperately cling to almost anyone as a new Great White Hope. Remember when Marco Rubio was being touted as the great standard-bearer for 21st century conservatism?
There is no way that the FSB did not copy them, so they more or less immediately took custody of all of Snowden's information.
Snowden is not some experienced superspy with deep organizational knowledge - he's just a drone who stole a bunch of stuff. I'm sure the debriefing was short.
So Snowden has no further value to Russia.
From Putin's perspective it's simple: we have squeezed all the juice out of this asset, why keep him if it makes the Americans mad? We'll do them a favor and deny him asylum, and use that as a chit for later.
George Bush is neither a hero nor an icon. He's a retired politician.
No one on this thread is making him out to be something he's not.
To the contrary, it is Edward Snowden - a thief, a traitor and a narcissist - who is being held up as some kind of hero or icon here.
You fail to acknowledge the passage of 4th Amendment. Again. "Illegal search and seizure without consent." That constitutes theft. "Thou Shalt NOT Steal" is both Constitutional and Biblical.
Nor does the constitution forbid citizens from giving the police legally obtained information if the police ask for it.
Have you invited the NSA into your home? Btw -- Third-Party theft is no different than a thief selling his "wares" to a pawn shop.
He provided evidence of the US military's surveillance of Chinese government communications to Red China and provided them with a list of compromised IP addresses.
Didn't you earlier in this thread admit to the effect that "everyone knows everyone else spies on each other"? Moreover, you are merely speculating on Snowden's "treason" and so-called "evidence." And pray tell -- is the source of this information the very SAME source that's been harvesting our personal information WITHOUT A WARRANT OR CONSENT??
You can't have it both ways.
You've got that all ass-backwards there, Sherlock.
The "thief, traitor, and narcissist" is in the White House. And YOU support HIS illegal and unconstitutional policies.
*barfing*
It is neither a search nor a seizure when it is a voluntary transaction.
Third-Party theft is no different than a thief selling his "wares" to a pawn shop.
Incorrect analogy.
This is more like the pawn shop owner selling the pawned good to a new buyer.
Moreover, you are merely speculating on Snowden's "treason" and so-called "evidence."
It's not speculation. Snowden very publicly did this.
Yeah -- how long could it have taken Snowden to reveal the extent of his surveillance of 300 million Americans on behalf of a rogue government?
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.