Is Snowden a traitor or a public servant?

[Autococker07]

I have mixed emotions about this whole thing.
What if snowden was told the way things were and took his oath and when he was "let in" and looked around things were not like he was told?

Bout sums it up.... what if he took his Oath seriously?

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

We will never know WHAT he was privvy to that made him think this was the correct course of action, we will only know what our elected officials tell us he did.... Just like the civil war, the victor writes the history, for right or wrong. I couldn't sleep if I monday morning quarterbacked this with the thought that the signers of our Declaration of Independence were also traitors (per the crown).....

 

[keith44spl]

.

If this had come down from someone in a position that....Maybe, like Mark Felt held in '72

Or could this all be smoke and mirrors for some other goings on?

The old "Don't watch my eyes...Watch my hands, Don't be watching my eyes!"

Get their minds and attention drawn away from what....Is really going on.

.
"Don't pay any attention the the man behind the curtain!"


.

 

[S&W45Colt]

Propaganda became mainstream when the Rockefellers slaughtered 11 women and children in Colorado to end a coal miners striking for safe working conditions and a living wage. They were portrayed in the media as the Robber Barons they were. They hired people to create their Charitable Trust, they gave away money in photo ops and it changed their image. Propaganda in Business and Government has flourished ever since.

Fast forward to 1917, the US Government created an entire division who's two prong goal was to sell Americans on the war and to help foster the viewpoint American worth and glory comes in great part from how it's military did. This same group, Bernays(Sigmund Freuds nephew) etc went on to create the materialistic society America has become, but that's another story.

Back to the Rockefellers, they also endowed the "Rockefeller Foundation" who's mission statement said in part is:

"would supply essential facts on the formation and trend of opinion from peace to war time and from one stage to another under the force of successive war crises. It is expected that further analysis of the data will demonstrate the influence of such factors as family relationship, educational experience, and occupation; the group origins of reported intensity of opinion or apparent lack of it on many issues." It has since gone on to forming public opinion and advising politicians how to mold public opinion towards their aims.

Remember the first Gulf War controversy when it was revealed the Retired Generals they used to discuss the war were paid employees of the Defense industry and most of them were registered lobbyist in D.C.? It was further revealed there were 3 Psyops Officers stationed in the CNN newsroom in exchange for CNN's imbedded correspondents privileges.

All of this is to say the Government has spent billions of dollars, the Defense industry as well, to mold public opinion to be that National Security and the Military are above question. The words National Security means no questions, you don't need to know, you can't handle it, so shut up while we keep you safe. Anything that exposes this mindset, brings it to the public's attention and protects the principles of the Constitution is a good thing. The Oath is to protect the Constitution, there is also an understanding that illegal orders are not valid. He has ruined his life to expose violations of the Constitution, he is a hero.

P.S. I am a Conservative, not a Liberal. I say this to say, I am far from a liberal Flag Burner and love this Country, but fear we are on the doorstep of the Government destroying what the Founding Fathers Envisioned.

Sorry for the length, but it's a complicated system.

 

[PALADIN85020]

I think Snowden's revelations served a purpose. It was revealed that the NSA is wholesale monitoring just about every means of communications in the U.S. by just about anybody who is still not using carrier pigeons or semaphores. And now the POTUS has confirmed that it's not just "metadata" but CONTENT that is being recorded. Of course we are assured that a judge would have to approve listening to that or reading that, and we are supposed to "trust" that the government is adhering to that standard. RIGHT. We have already been shown this year how much we should trust the government - examples: The IRS targeting of groups, the invasion of press privacy, etc., etc.

Is it just me, or is anyone else outraged that the government thinks it's OK to listen in on my wife's phone call to her cousin in Ohio to get her mom's recipe for oyster chowder? That this is somehow done in the interest of national security? Wake up, folks. The 4th Amendment was put into the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) for a purpose. It was to prevent exactly what is happening now.

I'm a great believer in national security. And I do not begrudge wiretapping or e-mail monitoring - provided there is reasonable suspicion and warrant is issued FIRST. But to do it without warrant on a wholesale basis on virtually everyone in the country 24/7?

NO. It's high time the public pulled the reins in on this practice, and pronto. Big Brother needs to be chopped off at the knees, and soon before it gets out of hand. Oh, wait. It already has gotten out of hand... So the question is - what are we going to do about it? The question is not whether or not to shoot the messenger. It's irrelevant now. You can't un-ring a bell.

John

 

[feralmerril]

This deal has opened up a new dilemia of possibilitys in every direction. Now we have the tech but dont seem to have come to a conclusion of how if at all to use it moraly. Kind of like the first cavemen discovering fire. Gee. We found out how to use the U-2 with cameras 60 years ago and there was no public debate over it when we became aware of it when powers got shot down but now we know they use drones with cameras on our own people its a different story but its been tolerated for a long time in searching for weed patchs and illegals.
We have had the atom bomb and used it almost 70 years ago killing over a quarter million of not all soliders but dont want anyone else to have it. I see now puton is saying russia might consider takeing snowden. Gee, $220,000s a year, a hot pole dancer GF, this guy must have a high set of morals to give that up! Is he a marter or a benidict arnold? I guess it depends on what country you live in or who wins before we find out if he`s the lowest heel or highest hero in our history.

 

[jaykellogg]

Don't forget that all of the things the Patriot act accomplishes could have been accomplished by other legal means. All this does is make it easier and allows the government to do it wholesale without any prior suspicion of wrongdoing.

I am not admitting to any law breaking when I am on the phone, that is not the point. For the government to get a wiretap for my phones they have to have some real suspicion. Otherwise it is just a fishing expedition.

I also feel as a law abiding citizen that the government should not keep track of my keystrokes while I am on the internet.

 

[old bear]

I was leaning Toward treason on Snowdens' part until Di-Fi announced that he was a traitor, now I may have to rethink my first thoughts.

 

[amazingflapjack]

His statement that his greatest fear was that after his actions that "nothing would change" told the story for me. I watched the taped interview, and his body language, and all forms of non verbal communication appeared very genuine to me. We are told that 94% of all real como is non verbal. It is easy for me to believe that someone would be moved by conscience to take this kind of action.

 

[wbraswell]

If taking an oath makes you morally blind, then you truely have gone over to the dark side.

 

[midkansmithfan]

The NSA is discharging it's responsibilities as prescribed by the US Congress. How that information is used is the only legal question that pertains. Snowden broke the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
OBTW Ask the former Soviet Union what it thinks of the NSA.

 

[tlay]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

 

[BearBio]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

Ever hear of the Nuremberg Trials?

"Befehl ist befehl, Ja?"

 

[venomballistics]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

What if that order is to execute an armed assault on some quiet street in hometown USA?

What the NSA did was in violation of the 4th amendment. it doesn't really matter to what effect the action comes to.
Its not all that different from a law enforcement agency raiding every home in a town for the purpose of cataloging the possessions of each individual.
no good can come from such things.
Im hard pressed to think of a way the mass sigint grab can be used for the greater good. Also, if this has been a common practice. Boston, Newtown, Aurora, the DC sniper, as well as other high profile acts of stupidity prove the ineffectual nature of the practice. The ends cannot be used to justify the means unless those ends are one sweetheart of a deal.

 

[PALADIN85020]

We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

It seems we've heard that statement a lot before - I think it was after WWII in in a place called Nuremberg.

Like many of you here, I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It appears to me that Snowden put that oath above agreeing that he would, like a robot, follow orders that fly in the face of the Constitution.

If, while I was in the service, my CO said that I could not report a rape because it was "sensitive" and "classified" in the "interest of national security," I'd have a real problem with that. As I get older, I feel more allegiance to a moral code than an unConstitutional one imposed on me by a government I can't trust to uphold the same oath I took. I am very much aware that "classification" is often imposed just to cover someone's rear end. Right now, as we speak, service members overseas are being ordered NOT to look at news reports on recent scandals, in the interest of national security. Plain and simple, that is pure Bravo Sierra. It's inconceivable to me that an order like that would go out to people placing themselves in harm's way in the service of their country. The same country they were taught to believe was moral, and which has a Constitution that protects their rights.

If someone told me to obey an unConstitutional order, then I would have a problem. It's not whether or not I liked the order (I've obeyed many an order I thought was stupid and which I did not like), but whether or not it was in accordance with my oath to protect the Constitution.

Google "Oathkeepers" and it may help some to understand what is going on in this country a little better. Call me an out-of-date old curmudgeon, but people of my age remember what it was like to live in the land of the free. We'll still stand and fight to preserve the founding principles that our ancestors fought and died for. They did not sacrifice to have this country fundamentally transformed into a nanny state with an all-powerful and out-of-control central government.

John - OUT

 

[BearBio]

I was in the Army during My Lai.

 

[Mike7.62]

The NSA is discharging it's responsibilities as prescribed by the US Congress. How that information is used is the only legal question that pertains. Snowden broke the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
OBTW Ask the former Soviet Union what it thinks of the NSA.

Just because it is "prescribed" by Congress doesn't make it either Constitutional or right. The "law" as you describe it has been used by charlatans and dictators for millennia to enhance their power. The Nazi's used the law to kill six million Jews and a few million other "undesirables"; that doesn't make it right-but it was lawful.

The problem is that almost everything that the NSA and other black ops groups do is hidden behind the veil of "national security" and never sees the light of day, and if it does, then the representatives who are questioning the activities are routinely lied to. All OK under he umbrella of "national security". That may seem acceptable on its face, but allows massive abuse, some of which we're now becoming aware.

And yes, I'm sure that the former USSR and the present day Russia and China despise the NSA and wish that they had something as effective, but only when they see how efficient the surveillance of their own population can be. The dilemma of any organization such as the NSA is that yes, it is effective, and initially aimed at foreign enemies, but the potential for abuse that it has against its own internal population is high, and we're learning how high through sources such as Binney and Snowden. I personally would rather do without the effectiveness of the NSA if it means giving up my rights under the Constitution and living in a police state.

 

[finesse_r]

I am not going to say if he was right or wrong releasing the information he did. Going to look at it from a different angle... Seems a lot of the "Whistle Blowers" today are releasing classified information based on their perception of what is right or wrong, oath to secrecy or classified status be dammed. Now, what if a person, who has access to, say a deadly virus recipe, decides to release it to the public, because he believes it for the good of the world, putting all nations on an even playing field. As long as he truly believes that, is it OK? Do we only honor classified status, and secerecy oaths as long as they meet our personal beliefs? A lot of classified material is really not that big of a deal, or that harmful. But some of it really is dangerous, and can cause a lot of harm. How far do we let an individual go in deciding what is what, based on their personal beliefs and agendas? Larry

Because we are still pretending and some of us are still trying to have a democratic republican type of government, rather than a totalitarian state. For the same reason we allow all people to vote and elect leaders. Because we trust our citizens. Because when we blindly trust our government we are asking to become slaves. Also for the same reason we allow individual citizens to conceal carry a firearm.

However, If someone does as you suggest it is certainly harmful if they release the actual formula for the virus. That is very different from releasing the fact that such a virus exists. IMHO, the fact that such viruses are being manufactured by our government is information about which that the public should be aware. Whereas the actual formula is something no one should ever have. Being a whistle blower requires courage and the ability to discriminate among things that are necessary to our freedom and things that are not, among things that are criminal and things that are not, and to know the difference between a deadly formula and the general knowledge that such a formula has been developed in violation of treaties and without the consent of the governed.

No one is suggesting that we provide cart blanch immunity to people that expose secrets. In fact the secret has to be a vile and a serious criminal action before anyone should ever consider releasing it. But the current overuse of the top secret stamp to hide criminal actions is putting our freedom in far more peril than is any terrorist group that ever existed, or any real whistle blower.

I would venture 95 % of the information that is classified as top secret is so classified to protect government agents and employees, and not to protect the citizens of the USA, or at the very least is no longer a secret to our enemies.

As to your scenario about the virus a similar event took place when the Rosenberg's supplied the USSR with the secrets to the atomic bomb. Their actions was tried in open court and they were justly executed for treason. It was believed they were spies and their motives were not altruistic, which is what I still believe about the actions of the Rosenbergs. They were operating with a support gang or cell that managed to escape prosecution. But it was clear their intent was to provide vital technical information to the Soviet Union at a time that allowed for rapid expansion of nuclear weapons. Any argument that their actions were for some world good were totally spurious.

In the situation under discussion, the information released only harmed certain high level government employees and elected officials and in no way undermined US security. In fact it strengthen our security by reminding officials they could not always get away with criminal actions by hiding their acts under a "top security" rubber stamp.

If we fail to use our own individual judgment in all situations, then we fail to be free men and we deserve the enslavement that will quickly follow our abdication of exercising that freedom.

Freedom is never free and I don't mean by this the cost is war, because the greatest danger to freedom is always, and I mean always, from a strong central government. The cost of freedom is individual and/or group vigilance and action by our citizenry, and it always has been.

 

[Mike7.62]

My opinion is that this man took an oath to his country, the same oath that many of us in the military took. How do you think our military would work if an officer ordered a private to do something and for whatever reason he decided that he didn't like it and went and complained to the press? Then takes off for China. We have to obey orders no matter if we like them or not.

No, actually you don't. There are things such as lawful orders and those that are not. Your duty is to obey the former, and refuse to obey the latter. When an order clearly contravenes the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Agreement, or the US Constitution it is clearly unlawful. If there is confusion over what is or isn't lawful, usually your conscience is a good guide.

 

[Mike7.62]

You sir, have hit the nail squarely on the head. And with your military and police service, it carries more weight than if someone like me said it. Tyrannical governments always use "public security or safely" to justify their acts.
I ask this to those who say "I don't have anything to hide". What would be your reaction if you came home and the police/government where going through your house, your home videos, pictures, documents, everything, no warrant, no probable cause and gave you the explanation of "national security" or "just because we can". And on top all that, they are copying all of it. Folks, that is what they are doing.
That little thing called the Constitution that many of you swore to uphold and protect has a amendment in it that specifically says they (the government) cannot do that without probable cause.

Yes, the old, "if you aren't doing anything wrong or illegal, then you don't have to worry" argument. The problem is that you don't get to determine what is right or legal, and the activity that you thought was legal yesterday, may be illegal tomorrow, and in most cases you won't know it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, or so I'm told, so it puts you into jeopardy regardless of knowledge, or lack thereof.

 

[wbraswell]

Some of the viewpoints of our members, inadvertantly affirm the importance of our 2nd Amendment, and the need to keep who is armed anonymous as possible. IMHO, of course.