NSA leaker has come forward: Idiot has fled the U.S

[Pulsar]

Yep. It sucks for him but it is not up to him to determine what is "legal" and "illegal" or "right" and "wrong".

Hmmm.

I once took a military history course and we spent a lot of time on Mai-Lai. 'Just following orders' isn't a defense.

He followed his conscience fully understanding the consequences, because he believed his country was doing a grave injustice to it's people. You may disagree, but I think it was his responsibility to do so.

 

[palehorse]

IMO, the problem with a public debate is that such transparency, with regards to the capabilities of PRISM, may very well limit the effectiveness of the initiative by making the programs technical merits known to those who wish to exploit it.

Obviously the finer details are missing but the general limits of PRISM were fairly well laid out by this leak.

I was referring to a public debate about the phone metadata program, specifically, not PRISM. (I thought I had made that abundantly clear in my last post, but maybe not?)

 

[RampantAndroid]

Not sure what I think of him yet but question..

How is Snowden any different from Daniel Ellsberg? The release of the Pentagon Papers is credited with ending the Vietnam War early and saving thousands of lives.

I actually couldn't help but compare the two events. Not sure they are different; they both saw something they thought the American public should know. They both acted on that. With any luck Snowden won't get extradited and will be free to come home when Obama is out of office. But probably not...

The world needs whistle blowers. That is to say, the world needs people of good conscience who are willing to act on it.

 

[DCal430]

Nope.

The FISA doesn't approve NSA programs. They approve requests to access the data in the NSA program. I.e., they issue warrants.



Fern

A FISA court judge has to order the telecoms to handover their data every three months, by issuing this order he is confirming it is constitutional.

 

[Genx87]

A FISA court judge has to order the telecoms to handover their data every three months, by issuing this order he is confirming it is constitutional.

Oh bullshit he is. He doesn't rule on the constitutionality of the law. He just rules on whether the order can be continued under current law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A FISA court judge has to order the telecoms to handover their data every three months, by issuing this order he is confirming it is constitutional.

Not that you are interested, but an order is not automatically Constitutional because any government official says it is. That is determined solely by the SCOTUS. A judge could order you shot for no reason. Would you stand up against the wall and say "Hey he's a judge, and anything he does is Constitutional"?

You just might.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Reality is that none of this data is private, it is the property of Google, Facebook, Verizon, ect. and they can do with it as they please. I don't understand how someone would have an expectation of privacy using such services.

Who are you the property of?

 

[justoh]

I actually couldn't help but compare the two events. Not sure they are different; they both saw something they thought the American public should know. They both acted on that. With any luck Snowden won't get extradited and will be free to come home when Obama is out of office. But probably not...

The world needs whistle blowers. That is to say, the world needs people of good conscience who are willing to act on it.

He should be punished. We can't have people leaking info willy nilly without consequences. If this revelation is really about his democratic ideals and not selflish fame seeking, then he should be prepared to spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He should be punished. We can't have people leaking info willy nilly without consequences. If this revelation is really about his democratic ideals and not selflish fame seeking, then he should be prepared to spend the rest of his life in prison.

On one hand there are secrets which need to be kept and some which need light thrown on them. I don't think "willy nilly" fits here. It wasn't random. I don't understand your last point. If one were to expose Hitler's plan for the Jews should he or she have deserved a firing squad? Yes that's somewhat hyperbolic, but it's illustrative in kind.

 

[justoh]

The issue of whether or not we should know about it is separate from the issue of whether or not he should have leaked or whether he should be punished. His treachery cannot be excused by government treachery.

 

[justoh]

So many people here failing to understand the 4th amendment while berating others for failing to do so, and while adamantly quoting it in support of nonsense propositions (in same cases highlighting the completely irrelevant part relating how warrants should properly be issued - we aren't talking about warrants are we? Unless the permission given by FISC constituted a Warrant, which it doesnt... so we are talking about warrantless searches, no? And warrantless searches are obviously not illegal per se). Anyway, whether or not it's unconstitutional depends on whether or not scotus would find these searches to be reasonable or not. At most it's arguably unconstitutional at the moment, not clearly so, and definitely not clearly so based only on the plain language of the 4th.

 

[palehorse]

The issue of whether or not we should know about it is separate from the issue of whether or not he should have leaked or whether he should be punished. His treachery cannot be excused by government treachery.

This.

 

[Phanuel]

This.

Wat?

 

[palehorse]

Wat?

The fact that Snowden being punished for the leaks, and the national conversation on government "surveillance," are two separate issues.

 

[BoberFett]

The fact that Snowden being punished for the leaks, and the national conversation on government "surveillance," are two separate issues.

If not for him, there would be no national conversation. That's the whole point of protecting whistleblowers.

 

[Phanuel]

If not for him, there would be no national conversation. That's the whole point of protecting whistleblowers.

This.

Why do people continue to blindly believe the government? I'm not some conspiracy nut, but every single time they say they aren't collecting data, they are and have been for awhile.

 

[justoh]

It's a bit pointless to argue about it really. If you were the government, you would pursue a course of discrediting him and then prosecution. You're the government. He's been a very naughty boy. I think it's a pretty decent deal really. They get international attention but give up their personal freedom. Do they have high speed internet in prison btw? I bet if they emphasized the absence of internet in prison young people would straighten up.

 

[RampantAndroid]

So many people here failing to understand the 4th amendment while berating others for failing to do so, and while adamantly quoting it in support of nonsense propositions (in same cases highlighting the completely irrelevant part relating how warrants should properly be issued - we aren't talking about warrants are we? Unless the permission given by FISC constituted a Warrant, which it doesnt... so we are talking about warrantless searches, no? And warrantless searches are obviously not illegal per se). Anyway, whether or not it's unconstitutional depends on whether or not scotus would find these searches to be reasonable or not. At most it's arguably unconstitutional at the moment, not clearly so, and definitely not clearly so based only on the plain language of the 4th.

....uh, yes, they are illegal. There is no just cause, there is no warrant.

 

[woolfe9998]

The issue of whether or not we should know about it is separate from the issue of whether or not he should have leaked or whether he should be punished. His treachery cannot be excused by government treachery.

Why would you call it "treacherous" if he did so to benefit the public? It might be illegal, and perhaps he should be prosecuted if it was, but that is not the same thing as a moral wrong. If illegal, it was an act of civil disobedience.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

This.

Why do people continue to blindly believe the government? I'm not some conspiracy nut, but every single time they say they aren't collecting data, they are and have been for awhile.

Speaking of conspiracy nuts - you remember those guys you were calling consipiracy nuts 5-10 years ago? Yeah, they were right. Now everyone is joining in along side them and acting like they were there the whole time

Fuckin' hilarious.

 

[bshole]

The issue of whether or not we should know about it is separate from the issue of whether or not he should have leaked or whether he should be punished. His treachery cannot be excused by government treachery.

NOT THIS !^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If not for him, there would be no national conversation. That's the whole point of protecting whistleblowers.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


There is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY little that our government should be keeping from us. Secretive governments are suppressive governments which are not conducive to free societies.

 

[palehorse]

Why would you call it "treacherous" if he did so to benefit the public? It might be illegal, and perhaps he should be prosecuted if it was, but that is not the same thing as a moral wrong. If illegal, it was an act of civil disobedience.

There is no "might be illegal" about it. What he did -- mishandling classified information and distributing it publicly -- is absolutely illegal. There is simply no question about that.

However, that doesn't mean that the national conversation he inspired isn't worthwhile.

Regardless of how many people loved him for his actions, Robin Hood was still a thief.

 

[ivwshane]

I just want to know how this guy is any different from bradly manning?

 

[palehorse]

I just want to know how this guy is any different from bradly manning?

Manning was not selective, at all, in what he released, so any claim he might have had to "the moral high-road" should be thrown out the window. His actions were done more for the sake of personal revenge than anything else.

Snowdon, on the other hand, can still claim to be a selective and morally driven whistle-blower (even if that ultimately turns out to be false, as well).

They both committed similar crimes, though.

 

[justoh]

Why couldn't he have leaked it anonymously?