Snowden says he was a spy, not just an analyst - Interview 10 pm tonight NBC

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Quoted from the interview last night:

As Williams put the question to him, "You hear often in the United States, 'Why doesn't he come home and face the music?' "

"It's a fair question," Snowden said. "But it's also uninformed, because what has been lain against me are not normal charges. They're extraordinary charges. We've seen more charges under the Espionage Act in the last administration than we have in all other administrations in — in Americans history. The Espionage Act provides — anyone accused of it of no chance to make a public defense.

You can't argue to the jury that what you did was in the public interest. You're not even allowed to make that case. They can't hear it. You are not allowed to argue — based on all the evidence in your favor because that evidence may be classified, even if it's exculpatory. And so when people say — "Why don't you go home and face the music?" I say you have to understand that the music is not an open court and a fair trial."

The government should be required to declassify anything it prosecutes an American citizen over. Not doing so should be a 6th amendment violation.
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
There is nothing else to discuss with you then. If you are unwilling to compare and contrast the single most comparable case in our history with what happened with Snowden then there is nothing else that can be said.

Snowden followed his conscience regardless of the personal consequences. He is a patriot in the truest sense of the word.

/thread

Some name that you just tossed out there, threw no support at, attempted to erroneously compare to this situation, then act as if you provided anything of value? Shit, I provided significantly more information than anything about it, explained what happened, explained how it couldn't be compared because the case had no conclusion due to government interference, and debunked your ridiculous unsupported claim that he and Snowden differ only by who was in the White House and that's the reason for outrage.

That took me all of 3 minutes of skimming through a Wikipedia page and a couple of short paragraphs. You've provided nothing other than false statements, irrelevant information, and your opinion about how you hail traitors as heroes.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
It's now all too clear. The little man just wanted attention. That's why he leaked, why he fled, and why he pretends to be his own infamous action hero. Sad sad little man. Well.. I have to at least give him credit for not grabbing a gun and killing strangers just because no one paid attention to him. What a nut case.

sportage being anti-Snowden essentially proves Snowden to be in the right.
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
Awww, poor baby can't hear differing opinions.

Nope. Ignorant people unable to make any valid claim, repeatedly ignore basic facts, refuse to even acknowledge basic facts, go around labeling me as "good little soldier" or compare me to a Nazi as their primary argument while having their little cliques of traitor supports come in to declare some kind of victory for traitors everywhere because they think I'm somehow obligated to address outrageous and unfounded shit they post multiple times over are not going to be worth my time to deal with in the future.

Feel free to back it up with something remotely valid, but we both know that its impossible because I'm right going off of the facts, and I doubt you are stupid enough to waste your own time doing anything other than just tossing an opinion out and treating it as such instead of presenting it as gospel, like others in this thread.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Nope. Ignorant people unable to make any valid claim, repeatedly ignore basic facts, refuse to even acknowledge basic facts, go around labeling me as "good little soldier" or compare me to a Nazi as their primary argument while having their little cliques of traitor supports come in to declare some kind of victory for traitors everywhere because they think I'm somehow obligated to address outrageous and unfounded shit they post multiple times over are not going to be worth my time to deal with in the future.

Feel free to back it up with something remotely valid, but we both know that its impossible because I'm right going off of the facts, and I doubt you are stupid enough to waste your own time doing anything other than just tossing an opinion out and treating it as such instead of presenting it as gospel, like others in this thread.

The facts have been laid out, and you ignore them. The illegal spying had support all the way up to the White House, and it was only after they were outed that the bureaucrats backpeddled.

The only traitors are the scumbag politicians and bureaucrats who supported the programs. And you of course.
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
The facts have been laid out, and you ignore them. The illegal spying had support all the way up to the White House, and it was only after they were outed that the bureaucrats backpeddled.

The only traitors are the scumbag politicians and bureaucrats who supported the programs. And you of course.

Feel free to present facts that support how releasing classified information related to national security was Snowden's call to make, and how doing so does not make him a traitor. Also, feel free to point out anything I've presented that isn't supported by facts, since the only thing I've done is repeatedly prove the irrefutable argument that Snowden is a traitor by our laws, and the pointed out the various erroneously associated "facts" others have posted to support their indefensible opinions -- which they then refuse to defend in any regard. Then you can also show me where a single person has even attempted to rebut any of the facts that I've posted beyond tossing out their opinion and acting as though it is a valid counterargument against anything I have posted, or how any of the claims anyone else has made is somehow relevant as support for how Edward Snowden is not a traitor.

Or are going with the posting of your opinion about irrelevant information angle and treating it as fact relating to this incident like others in the thread? Either way, you don't really warrant further response, either, until you post something meaningful; I'm sure that's a "win" in your book, though, so go ahead and schedule your feast in the honor of a traitor and hail him as king of America instead of labeling him correctly as the traitor that he is.
 

cirrrocco

Golden Member
Sep 7, 2004
1,952
78
91
Still waiting for you to actually counter one of my arguments, but that works. You get to keep your tunnel vision and your simple, secure little world, and I get to keep shooting down your arguments unopposed, which others will read and assume you conceded. Works out for everybody. :thumbsup:

Irish Scott. totally agree with you. If the grunts in here watched the first video of him around June 2013 in totality , they will know why he did what he did.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Feel free to present facts that support how releasing classified information related to national security was Snowden's call to make, and how doing so does not make him a traitor. Also, feel free to point out anything I've presented that isn't supported by facts, since the only thing I've done is repeatedly prove the irrefutable argument that Snowden is a traitor by our laws, and the pointed out the various erroneously associated "facts" others have posted to support their indefensible opinions -- which they then refuse to defend in any regard. Then you can also show me where a single person has even attempted to rebut any of the facts that I've posted beyond tossing out their opinion and acting as though it is a valid counterargument against anything I have posted, or how any of the claims anyone else has made is somehow relevant as support for how Edward Snowden is not a traitor.

Just so we are clear...

If Snowden is did not have the right to be a whistleblower then who did? Because it seems that everyone in the system was willing to keep doing the things that the government said it was not doing, and that most Americans feel the government should not do.

Our founding fathers understood the importance of protecting whistleblowers. You seem to be saying that whistleblowing is wrong when it has to do with national security.

Am I getting this right?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
We already promised no execution, he will be safe if he returns.

Safe from what? Execution? I'll tell you what. Let's have any politician who supported abuses of the Constitution, and I don't mean as they twist it for their purposes, be tried and punished first. No executions of course. We want them safe. Once they are imprisoned then we'll worry about Snowden.

Wait- aren't you the NK Fanboi?
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Some name that you just tossed out there, threw no support at, attempted to erroneously compare to this situation, then act as if you provided anything of value? Shit, I provided significantly more information than anything about it, explained what happened, explained how it couldn't be compared because the case had no conclusion due to government interference, and debunked your ridiculous unsupported claim that he and Snowden differ only by who was in the White House and that's the reason for outrage.

That took me all of 3 minutes of skimming through a Wikipedia page and a couple of short paragraphs. You've provided nothing other than false statements, irrelevant information, and your opinion about how you hail traitors as heroes.

So you believe Ellsberg should be in jail I take it?
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
Just so we are clear...

If Snowden is did not have the right to be a whistleblower then who did? Because it seems that everyone in the system was willing to keep doing the things that the government said it was not doing, and that most Americans feel the government should not do.

Our founding fathers understood the importance of protecting whistleblowers. You seem to be saying that whistleblowing is wrong when it has to do with national security.

Am I getting this right?

What I am saying is that what he did was illegal by our laws. There are plenty of channels he could have gone through. He claims to have made a attempt at notifying the NSA's legal department, then just stopped there and took it upon himself to release classified information about not only domestic spying, but our espionage operations against other countries. He could have easily notified others with the proper authorization, anonymously reported information about domestic spying to a paper without releasing any classified information at all, or simply released information about the domestic spying (which still wouldn't be the right thing to do, but would at least give some credence to his claims of patriotism). Instead, he chose to do none of the above and took it upon himself to release information that had could have no foreseeable effect other than causing harm to our nation.

So you believe Ellsberg should be in jail I take it?

Nope. He didn't get a fair trial. Like I previously, we will never know the outcome as a result.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,473
2
0
Nope. He didn't get a fair trial. Like I previously, we will never know the outcome as a result.

Try using your brain. Assume no errors on the governments part. Should he be in jail?

You have no issue passing judgment on Snowden. Why not Ellsberg?
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
What I am saying is that what he did was illegal by our laws. There are plenty of channels he could have gone through. He claims to have made a attempt at notifying the NSA's legal department, then just stopped there and took it upon himself to release classified information about not only domestic spying, but our espionage operations against other countries. He could have easily notified others with the proper authorization, anonymously reported information about domestic spying to a paper without releasing any classified information at all, or simply released information about the domestic spying (which still wouldn't be the right thing to do, but would at least give some credence to his claims of patriotism). Instead, he chose to do none of the above and took it upon himself to release information that had could have no foreseeable effect other than causing harm to our nation.



Nope. He didn't get a fair trial. Like I previously, we will never know the outcome as a result.

So the guy looked around, found horrible things going on in his opinion, and should have checked with someone and not made it public? Then tell me who he should have gone to. I personally cannot see who he could have gone to without serious risk to his freedom.
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
So the guy looked around, found horrible things going on in his opinion, and should have checked with someone and not made it public? Then tell me who he should have gone to. I personally cannot see who he could have gone to without serious risk to his freedom.

I don't know anything other than it in no way excuses what he did, and using it as an excuse is ridiculous. Edward Snowden's opinion is not justification for the release of classified information related to national security. Plenty of people think they're in the right doing things like suicide bombings, obtaining guns and shooting up schools or movie theaters, and various other violations of the law, so I suppose you support them, too, because it's only someone's personal belief that matters? You don't have to really answer this obviously rhetorical question, but I hope that you see the point.
 

DougK62

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2001
8,035
6
81
The people are meant to run the government, not the other way around. So for me, Snowden is a traitor to the government but a hero and champion for the people. As an American citizen I'm very thankful to him for choosing to severely and negatively impact his own life to show egregious Constitutional violations by the government.

Thanks, Ed!
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
I don't know anything other than it in no way excuses what he did, and using it as an excuse is ridiculous. Edward Snowden's opinion is not justification for the release of classified information related to national security. Plenty of people think they're in the right doing things like suicide bombings, obtaining guns and shooting up schools or movie theaters, and various other violations of the law, so I suppose you support them, too, because it's only someone's personal belief that matters? You don't have to really answer this obviously rhetorical question, but I hope that you see the point.

So if not opinion, when does a whistleblower know when to blow the whistle? You are saying that if its law, every government employee should follow and not use their opinion. I'm guessing your only argument is to be "reasonable", because I cant think of any other argument.

It looks like you are trying to expand the argument to, people should not act on their opinions, only on what they are told to do by others? Because if not others, then it must come from one's self, and that is opinion. That is an argument totally different so feel free to PM me about that one.
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
Try using your brain. Assume no errors on the governments part. Should he be in jail?

You have no issue passing judgment on Snowden. Why not Ellsberg?

Try using my brain? Like you and your repeated bringing up of an irrelevant matter from 40 years ago relating to the most unsupported war in our history that you failed and still fail to relate to any of your claims in any regard, other than just repeatedly bringing up your failed attempt at association with no standing or support whatsoever? I'm hardly impartial since I read the information about Ellsberg, and I've already answered your question with the "no," it deserves.

Your hypothetical has no merit, which you want to disregard despite your bringing up of the matter, due to the circumstances of his case; his case was thrown out due to bias stemming from the illegally obtained evidence, so how could you possibly expect me to treat your meritless hypothetical with any validity -- or answer your obviously unanswerable question in an unbiased manner. Not that I expected anything other than this sort of ridiculous shenanigans from someone whose failed to address anything I've mentioned in any valid manner, been incorrect, or even supported any of their own claims using anything other than irrelevant information or their opinion. It is highly amusing that the person in your own discarded example case received a fair trial.

As for Snowden, it is pretty obvious that he violated the Espionage Act. Of course, he won't return (I sure as fuck wouldn't if I were him, either, because he doesn't even attempt to dispute his violations of the laws under which he has been charged -- additionally humorous that Ellsberg trusted the legal system and won, as an aside) to stand trial, so I guess all we have is the fact that he released classified information regarding our foreign espionage, which is under the protection of national security, and that doing so is clearly in violation of the Espionage Act. I'm sure your repeated profession of your unfounded, incorrect, and unsupported opinions of irrelevant matters backed by loaded questions stemming from the result of your own example case can surely see that much, however.
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
So if not opinion, when does a whistleblower know when to blow the whistle? You are saying that if its law, every government employee should follow and not use their opinion. I'm guessing your only argument is to be "reasonable", because I cant think of any other argument.

It looks like you are trying to expand the argument to, people should not act on their opinions, only on what they are told to do by others? Because if not others, then it must come from one's self, and that is opinion. That is an argument totally different so feel free to PM me about that one.

I've answered your questions, thus far, entirely accurately. It's not my fault you asked poorly-worded loaded questions to which I gave an appropriate response.

You don't change laws by breaking them. You change them by voting.