Snowden, America and human rights

Originally posted by joe beyser
So are you saying that publicly disclosing classified information is against the law even if the reason is to blow the whistle on illegal government activity? I guess that would explain why there are so many classified government secrets. It also explains why the government would like to get their hands on him and why Russia has said no.

Yes , it IS AGAINST THE LAW......you take classified info to your superiors if you see something you think is wrong.
And if they don't listen you keep going up THE CHAIN OF COMMAND>
You don't spread it all the f-over the internet.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Yes , it IS AGAINST THE LAW......you take classified info to your superiors if you see something you think is wrong.
And if they don't listen you keep going up THE CHAIN OF COMMAND>
You don't spread it all the f-over the internet.

I believe his superiors were the problem and his only chance of survival and getting the info out was to leave the country. You certainly are not that naive are you?

Originally posted by empovsun
some of snowden's father media interviews were very interesting
namely, when his father said that the presidents job is to protect
the constitution - to protect our rights, and he is FAILING to do so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRD2vMCD3Uo

skip to 7:00 for the constitution related quotes

he's [obama] a constitutional lawyer, but it seems it w ...[text shortened]... he will be remembered for being a weak president with the american public, at the very least!

My understanding is that Snowden wasn't some poor guy who suddenly found himself in a moral bind, as his father portrays him. Rather, he intentionally took that job for the sole purpose of stealing data/information and making it public. I agree that the president has an obligation to uphold the laws and not condone spying on citizens without a search warrant. I don't agree that Snowden had a right to do what he did, and he doesn't get to claim that he should have the same rights to unencumbered travel as someone who hasn't committed a crime and is avoiding trial.

Originally posted by Sahuaro
My understanding is that Snowden wasn't some poor guy who suddenly found himself in a moral bind, as his father portrays him. Rather, he intentionally took that job for the sole purpose of stealing data/information and making it public. I agree that the president has an obligation to uphold the laws and not condone spying on citizens without a search warra ...[text shortened]... rights to unencumbered travel as someone who hasn't committed a crime and is avoiding trial.

What crime are you referring to? I keep asking this question and nobody has answered so far. Tell me what crime you think Snowden has committed.

Originally posted by Sahuaro
My understanding is that Snowden wasn't some poor guy who suddenly found himself in a moral bind, as his father portrays him. Rather, he intentionally took that job for the sole purpose of stealing data/information and making it public. I agree that the president has an obligation to uphold the laws and not condone spying on citizens without a search warra rights to unencumbered travel as someone who hasn't committed a crime and is avoiding trial.

i don't care who he is, or what his intentions were. i care about the constitution, and the government tearing it down before our eyes. this isn't the first time this has happened. if you want to focus on the messenger, then fine, but don't overlook the real issue here. what the media should be discussing is the NSA, and the latest news on X-Keyscore recording the internet, but instead they are currently on terror alert #368 colour red orange meringue

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What crime are you referring to? I keep asking this question and nobody has answered so far. Tell me what crime you think Snowden has committed.

Espionage, theft, and disclosing classified information just off the top of my head.

But hey, since you say he hasn't broken any laws he should go ahead and face his charges. He will get a free topnotch defense attorney and a jury of his peers.

Originally posted by empovsun
i don't care who he is, or what his intentions were. i care about the constitution, and the government tearing it down before our eyes. this isn't the first time this has happened. if you want to focus on the messenger, then fine, but don't overlook the real issue here. what the media should be discussing is the NSA, and the latest news on X-Keyscore record ...[text shortened]... the internet, but instead they are currently on terror alert #368 colour red orange meringue

Searching records with a warrant is not a violation of the Constitution.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Espionage, theft, and disclosing classified information just off the top of my head.

But hey, since you say he hasn't broken any laws he should go ahead and face his charges. He will get a free topnotch defense attorney and a jury of his peers.

He could run for Congress, but otherwise belongs in jail.

Then again, he believes in the Constitution, so he would be a misfit there as well.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Espionage, theft, and disclosing classified information just off the top of my head.

But hey, since you say he hasn't broken any laws he should go ahead and face his charges. He will get a free topnotch defense attorney and a jury of his peers.

The espionage charge is bunk.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism

Theft? What did he steal other than information of an unconstitutional program and give it away to all of us? He didn't benefit from it.

It is illegal to classify a program that violates the constitution, in this case the 4th amendment. PRISM extracts private information without a warrant and probable cause.

The Department of Justice deemed Bush's warrantless wiretapping illegal and unconstitutional. Ashcroft would not approve it and Bush bypassed him with an illegal executive order. It is illegal because it violates the 4th amendment of the constitution. That is supposed to be the limit of executive orders.

Are you defending Bush to defend Obama? Where is that "change you can believe in"? Obama is just like Bush. Nothing has changed.

Where is the penalty for violating the constitution? You talk about punishing Snowden and Manning with baseless charges, but what about those that break the highest law, the constitution? Think about it!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
The espionage charge is bunk.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism

Theft? What did he steal other than information of an unconstitutional program and give it away to all of us? He didn't benefit from it.

It is illegal to classify a program that violates the constitution, in this case the 4th ...[text shortened]... charges, but what about those that break the highest law, the constitution? Think about it!

You mean besides the four NSA laptops he sole?

Explain to me in your own words how the espionage charge is bunk. I'm not going to rebut someone else's editorial that you lazily copied and pasted.

Conducting surveillance with a warrant is not unconstitutional.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
You mean besides the four NSA laptops he sole?

Explain to me in your own words how the espionage charge is bunk. I'm not going to rebut someone else's editorial that you lazily copied and pasted.

Conducting surveillance with a warrant is not unconstitutional.

He never stole any laptops. It makes little sense that he would do that.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42127_LA_Times_Contradicts_Guardian_Story_of_Snowdens_Four_Laptops

Snowden did not sell any of the information to a foreign government. Snowden is a whistleblower, not a spy. He released information that did not damage national defense and that is why the espionage charge is bunk.

The NSA violates the 4th amendment by seizing electronic records without warrant or probable cause. That is what is unconstitutional. I'm not talking about what the FBI does. That is a different issue and you know it.

Bush started all of this. You are being manipulated into defending PRISM because of your partisan defense of Obama, but by doing so you are defending Bush and I know what you think of Bush. Look what you have been manipulated into doing. You never would have defended PRISM if Bush was still president and you know it. This is just your partisan bias being used against you.
Look at how they tried to take advantage of Ashcroft's medical condition and how Bush eventually used an executive order to bypass the DOJ. Ask yourself why Bush was reluctant to use an executive order until his minions failed to get Ashcroft or Comey to sign. He knew executive orders are not valid when they are used to bypass the constitution. He only used one as a last resort.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05
/15/AR2007051500864_2.html

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Searching records with a warrant is not a violation of the Constitution.

just google XKeyscore...