Snowden broke the law by reporting criminal behavior of the government. I don’t get why that is supposed to be wrong.
I would like to send the message that when our government breaks the law or acts in an immoral way (difficult to judge I know) that citizens are free to reveal that information, even if that might cause some inconvience to the government. This argument that every single piece of information a goverment agent stamps “secrect” is sacred forever and ever gives those agents free reign to do as they please with no supervision and they apprently have done just that.
Yes, he broke the law. He also reveled that others were breaking the law. We could punish him or we could treat him like any other informant and cut a deal but we should be dealing with all of the law breakers.
I mean doing something like Elsberg did-- contact his Congressman. He doesn’t have to reveal any actual information.
If he has done this, then it’s up to him to tell us and make his case in the court of public opinion. If he doesn’t tell us, then I’m not willing to assume he did.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
It’s not important in light of what’s going on here. He did break the law, but it seems the NSA has also been breaking the law and its actions affect far more people in a more significant way. And there was no obvious legal way to make this issue public. At least two Senators were opposed to these programs and felt they couldn’t even discuss them publicly.
[/QUOTE]
There are obvious public ways to bring nearly anything to the public’s attention. Good grief, have you forgotten Watergate?? And today there are whistle blower laws that protect those who do such things. Will it be instant gratification in shutting down the supposed law breaking of the NSA? Nope. But then, how’s the path he took working out on that score?
Bottom line is he broke the law and did so in such a flagrant way that he had to freaking flee the country and look for asylum in Russia. He embarrassed the US AND many of our allies at the highest levels by breaking the law as well. I’m sorry that you think this is unimportant, but I disagree…it’s the crux of the entire sorry mess.
The outrage I’m seeing from the US’s allies is staged for their own public’s (and the rest of the worlds) consumption, just as our own is staged when, say, China or Israel is caught spying on us. Oh, I’m sure they are angry, especially since that shows holes in their own security. The biggest reason is that we were stupid enough to make all of this public and air our dirty laundry in such a spectacular way. As for the rest of your point, not every country has our resources. They spy to the extent they have the resources to do so, especially among the major player countries.
As noted above, there are whistle blower laws on the books today. There were ways he could have made this public and not by dumping all the data and giving it to the highest bidder on the international scene in exchange for asylum. His back wasn’t to the wall with his only choice being to take classified documents to Russia. Good grief.
So, what you are saying here is that aside from giving away some of the data on how and when the US conducts espionage and embarrassing the administration and the foreign office, hampering our international relations with our allies and potential enemies alike and undercutting confidence in the government by the public, this has really done no harm to national security at all. Is that a good summation?
As a major discussion point, or as a throwaway line? Either way, it’s a silly point. I don’t like him myself, but that’s got nothing to do with why what he did was wrong and why it hurt the US.
I guess it’s not hard to understand why this guy has become the poster child of the left, but from my perspective he’s not only a criminal but a fucking moron as well. I mean, at least if he was a SMART security breaking scum bag that would be one thing, but the guy is dumber than a box of rocks.
You’re not an American, are you? I don’t think you understand American public opinion very well.
Rosa Parks stood up to a law that was deemed unconstitutional. There is no way the law that Snowdon broke is going to be declared thus.
I’m a bit confused. You say Snowden was wrong to release this information to the press, and you mention Watergate as a better way of bringing things to the attention of the public. But Mark Felt also released his sensitive information directly to the press. The only difference I’m seeing here is Snowden didn’t use a porn-derived pseudonym when he talked to reporters.
The ‘better way’ IMHO was for Snowden to attempt to go through channels, and barring that to release the story to the press. Note, this doesn’t mean you dump the raw classified data on a foreign press service.
In the case of Felt, he knew that the activity was illegal and the investigation was being manipulated at the highest levels (IIRC, he had this straight from Nixon’s mouth, documented), so in his case it was the best thing he could do…this went all the way up to the president, after all. Are you claiming that what Snowden was involved in went all the way up to Obama, that Obama et al were illegally covering this all up and that this means Snowden had no other recourse than to go to a foreign press service with raw classified data to blow the lid off, forcing him to flee the country and seek asylum in Russia? :dubious:
I don’t think that was an option. As I remember it, Sen. Wyden was aware of what was happening and didn’t feel he could talk about it in public because it’s classified.
I can’t think of a legal option in this case.
Ha! You may have noticed the Obama administration isn’t a fan of those laws. They respond very harshly to leakers and whistleblowers and the U.S. (and U.K.) are taking an increasingly creepy stance on people who even possess information they don’t want them to have.
The than the U.K., whom did he embarrass? I saw they pissed off the UN and the Brazilians and the Germans and the French and the Vatican, but that’s not the same thing. He did indeed break the law and he did indeed leave the country. I’ve made the argument that he should’ve faced the music in the past and maybe he would have been a more effective spokesman for his cause had he done that. On the other hand since “investigating” these cases tends to involve months and months of unnecessary solitary confinement, I’m not surprised he ran.
To an extent, yes, but I think it’s wrong to write off the entire farrago that way. The NSA conducted very extensive surveillance on U.S. citizens, on foreigners in the U.S., and on friendly nations - and again, sometimes that was for economic rather than national security reasons, which seems outside of its actual mission and appears to have gone on to an extent that was counterproductive and beyond what most countries do.
They spy to the extent they are able to the extent they believe it’s wise to do so.
Fat lot of good those laws are doing anybody who blows the whistle on the government.
Is there any actual evidence that happened? I’m pretty sure the answer is no.
The harm here is caused by the NSA’s behavior, not by Snowden. To quote The Daily Show speaking for Richard Nixon, it’s in the category of “I would have preferred you hadn’t known I was a crook.”
I think in a lot of cases it’s inextricably woven in to the discussion. That said I don’t want to make you defend an opinion you don’t hold, so I can drop it here - but keep an eye out for it and I think you’ll see it a lot.
Why would Sen. Wyden talk about it in public? He’s supposed to “talk about it” in the Senate and get the law changed. If, that is, he thinks the law SHOULD be changed.
What a question! He’s a Senator who sits on the intelligence committee and knew about something that was of major interest to the public, and he (and Udall) seem to have concluded they couldn’t tell the public about it. Before Snowden they wouldn’t be any more specific than these kinds of pronouncements.
I will ignore the personal comment which I find quite stupid.
On the other hand, the second part of your post I find quite stupid. Forever in history people have broken laws for moral or belief reasons and have later been vindicated. It has nothing to do with technicality or constitutionality. It has to do with public opinion which I know well enough to know that, when the current hysteria cools down, support for Snowden, which is already quite substantial, will only grow and he will be pardoned or otherwise legally protected. Unless hysteria continues to grow in which case in 20 years the USA will be in a truly sorry state. I find this unlikely and I hope the hysteria and stupidity will subside.
Laws have been changed or found to be unconstitutional due to public pressure. When that did not happen pardons were issued, like happened with Vietnam deserters.
I have no doubt that support for Snowden, already substantial, will only grow over time.
Sailor: Your post does nothing but confirm what I said earlier. You don’t undrstand Americans. The guy is never getting a pardon. The very idea is, shall we say, stupid?
At first I was largely against Snowden. As more details of the NSA’s programs have come out I think Snowden did a good thing. Still, he did break the law and overall the law is correct (as Leaper pointed out we can’t have every yahoo leaking information). IMO a just outcome would be for Snowden to be tried, found guilty, and then immediately pardoned.
I don’t disagree with your points, but to blame the NSA is to ignore who and how the mad scheme was funded and signed off on. This was and is governmental policy, of both main parties - the NSA created and built an enormously expensive project over the lifetime of two or three administrations.
You could almost argue the Patriot Act was designed around this project.
Have you been living under a rock? Have you not noticed that more whistleblowers have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act in the past five years than the previous ninety?
Clear to any rational member of the general public. Snowden’s revelations have made it clear that the NSA has greatly exceeded the scope of it’s authority and is basically an out of control snooping machine. If you disagree, you are not rational, at this point.
I doubt that Snowden would get the tortured Manning got, but long jail term? If you don’t think THAT is on the boards, you haven’t been paying attention. And frankly, if at some time he leaves Russia and the CIA manages to grab him, some time spent being tortured in a CIA black site is not at all unlikely.
What channels, exactly?
Is the distinction between foreign and domestic press significant?
No. Are you arguing that unless Snowden had personal access to Obama and could ask him directly about NSA policy, he could not possibly justify blowing the whistle on what the NSA was doing?
I look at Snowden’s actions the way I would look at a bank employee who broke the bank’s privacy policies to call me and inform me that the bank was stealing my money. Sure, he is guilty of a technicality, but to focus on that is to miss the big picture.
And people who say that he should have gone through “proper” channels is like saying that the bank employee should have instead informed his bank VP, who was likely part of the stealing in the first place. Doing that means that he would get fired and I would never find out about it.
It’s not, but he spoke to members of the U.S. and foreign press anyway.
Breaking the law is not “a technicality”.
Analogy fail. The “bank VP” might be someone in the administration, but Congress is like the cops. It’s their duty to oversee the actions of the executive branch.