Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Des-Bal]

That doesn't mean we can't debate it, nor does it mean I can't express my opinion that's it's unconstitutional and must be stopped.

My words don't carry any legal weight, neither do yours, but this isn't an excuse to shut down discussion.

It's an excuse to avoid the vein of unconstitutionality.

If the program was unconstitutional then he was well within his rights to expose it but if it's not then he should hang. If your argument is based on the facts as we know them being wrong then it is a shitty argument.

[Des-Bal]

You're missing the point entirely.

Again, stop hiding behind the lack of a SCOTUS ruling on this issue to shut down all discussion. It's legalistic, pedantic, and reflects an unwillingness to actually discuss the issue.

Legality is sort of a big issue.

[Lemanrussland]

That doesn't mean we can't debate it, nor does it mean I can't express my opinion that's it's unconstitutional and must be stopped.

My words don't carry any legal weight, neither do yours, but this isn't an excuse to shut down discussion.

It's an excuse to avoid the vein of unconstitutionality.

If the program was unconstitutional then he was well within his rights to expose it but if it's not then he should hang. If your argument is based on the facts as we know them being wrong then it is a shitty argument.

SCOTUS hasn't ruled either way, so I don't know why you're strutting around like a pigeon and proclaiming victory. The government will likely pursue Snowden viciously, and use every means necessary to imprison him. Such is the cost of transparency in the United States today.

Using this to advocate for the program and argue that it's Constitutional is pathetic. You can't formulate an actual argument about why it's Constitutional, outside of "SCOTUS hasn't sed anything yet.".

[Arcturus Novus]

Mr. Snowden is bringing the transparency that our government needs to have in order for its citizens to trust it properly.

[Malvoro]

The government will likely pursue Snowden viciously, and use every means necessary to imprison him. Such is the cost of transparency in the United States today.

More likely he will "meet with an unfortunate accident" ...

[TaQud]

heesh. Nearly a fifth of the poll wants death penalty on him

[Ifreann]

More likely he will "meet with an unfortunate accident" ...

Maybe if the CIA are horribly incompetent.

[Des-Bal]

heesh. Nearly a fifth of the poll wants death penalty on him

There's nothing noble about treason.

[Des-Bal]

SCOTUS hasn't ruled either way, so I don't know why you're strutting around like a pigeon and proclaiming victory. The government will likely pursue Snowden viciously, and use every means necessary to imprison him. Such is the cost of transparency in the United States today.

Using this to advocate for the program and argue that it's Constitutional is pathetic. You can't formulate an actual argument about why it's Constitutional, outside of "SCOTUS hasn't sed anything yet.".

The idea that the government has no right to keep secrets is asinine. The legislative process could always use some transparency. Top secret information? Not so much.

[Lemanrussland]

heesh. Nearly a fifth of the poll wants death penalty on him

There's nothing noble about treason.

Nothing noble about exposing the lies and crimes of the state, on behalf of the citizenry? Spoken like a true libertarian...

[Des-Bal]

Nothing noble about exposing the lies and crimes of the state, on behalf of the citizenry? Spoken like a true libertarian...

I've yet to see evidence that crimes were committed.

[Lemanrussland]

SCOTUS hasn't ruled either way, so I don't know why you're strutting around like a pigeon and proclaiming victory. The government will likely pursue Snowden viciously, and use every means necessary to imprison him. Such is the cost of transparency in the United States today.

Using this to advocate for the program and argue that it's Constitutional is pathetic. You can't formulate an actual argument about why it's Constitutional, outside of "SCOTUS hasn't sed anything yet.".

The idea that the government has no right to keep secrets is asinine. The legislative process could always use some transparency. Top secret information? Not so much.

Nice strawman, I've obviously stated the government shouldn't be able to classify information... where did I say that?

The idea that the government can abuse it's ability to classify information to conceal potentially illegal activities from the public, and that this is all okay, is asinine.

[Des-Bal]

Nice strawman, I've obviously stated the government shouldn't be able to classify information... where did I say that?

The idea that the government can abuse it's ability to classify information to conceal potentially illegal activities from the public, and that this is all okay, is asinine.

Which are?

[Malvoro]

More likely he will "meet with an unfortunate accident" ...

Maybe if the CIA are horribly incompetent.

If they are incompetent, he will get away, if not, he will be shipped back to the States in a bag ..

[Lemanrussland]

Nice strawman, I've obviously stated the government shouldn't be able to classify information... where did I say that?

The idea that the government can abuse it's ability to classify information to conceal potentially illegal activities from the public, and that this is all okay, is asinine.

Which are?

Again, using your legalistic, pedantic nonsense to shut down arguments when backed into a corner. I would love to see you mount your own defense of the Constitutionality of the NSA's actions, outside of "SCOTUS hasn't made a ruling! SCOTUS hasn't made a ruling! SCOTUS hasn't made a ruling!" ad infinitum.

Of course you can't do that, because you can't actually defend your asinine, tyrannical ideas on their own merits.

[Des-Bal]

Again, using your legalistic, pedantic nonsense to shut down arguments when backed into a corner. I would love to see you mount your own defense of the Constitutionality of the NSA's actions, outside of "SCOTUS hasn't made a ruling! SCOTUS hasn't made a ruling! SCOTUS hasn't made a ruling!" ad infinitum.

Of course you can't do that, because you can't actually defend your asinine, tyrannical ideas on their own merits.

I'm saying you do not have the right to decide what is and is not illegal. That is not tyranny.

[Republic of Bordeaux]

I'm saying you do not have the right to decide what is and is not illegal. That is not tyranny.

"Everything they have done is perfectly fine because Congress says so."

[Ifreann]

Maybe if the CIA are horribly incompetent.

If they are incompetent, he will get away, if not, he will be shipped back to the States in a bag ..

And if he "meets with an unfortunate accident", they're incompetent. If Snowden dies everyone will blame the CIA and his death will be under huge amounts of scrutiny.

[Ifreann]

I'm saying you do not have the right to decide what is and is not illegal. That is not tyranny.

"Everything they have done is perfectly fine because Congress says so."

Who do you propose make the law, if not Congress? You?

[Des-Bal]

"Everything they have done is perfectly fine because Congress says so."

"My authority supersedes that of the united states government."

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Who do you propose make the law, if not Congress? You?

No where in my post am I questioning Congress' authority to make laws. I'm merely questioning why it isn't wrong, which evidently from his posts is because either SCOTUS hasn't said so or because there are laws that give the power to do so.

[Des-Bal]

No where in my post am I questioning Congress' authority to make laws. I'm merely questioning why it isn't wrong, which evidently from his posts is because either SCOTUS hasn't said so or because there are laws that give the power to do so.

Why it isn't wrong for congress to make laws or why it isn't wrong for people to not break the law?

[Republic of Bordeaux]

Why it isn't wrong for congress to make laws or why it isn't wrong for people to not break the law?

Can you guys not read? My grievance is not with Congress' authority to make laws; my grievance is with the legalistic attitude of NSG and half of America.

[Heavenly Peace]

Anyone who commits great sacrifices to reveal to the public the sinister way in which government agencies have been operating to undermine civil liberties is a hero in my book.

[Malvoro]

If they are incompetent, he will get away, if not, he will be shipped back to the States in a bag ..

And if he "meets with an unfortunate accident", they're incompetent. If Snowden dies everyone will blame the CIA and his death will be under huge amounts of scrutiny.

Which will accomplish .. what, exactly? The same thing the huge amount of scrutiny the NSA is under will accomplish? Already, the media pundits are trying their best, with a good amount of success, to lay ALL of this on Obama, despite the fact PRISM was started under Bush and is in fact a legacy of even older surveillance programs. You, I, and everyone else who thinks, already knows that if the media hands people some little news bite that "Mr Snowden was killed in a car crash" the herds will buy it completely and never once question what caused such a crash.