Is Edward Snowden a traitor or a patriot?

Thomas Drake of the National Security Agency did almost the exact same thing in 2006. He leaked documents to the Baltimore Sun showing that the NSA's counter-terrorism program allowed the agency to analyze data shared over cell phones and e-mail. The only real difference here was Drake was an official with the NSA and not a contractor. He was charged with espionage, faced 30 years in prison. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor in 2011. Unauthorized use of a computer.

He recently offered a warning to Snowden. The Goverment Will Seek Revenge

Daniel Ellsberg, U.S. Department of Defense, In 1971, he handed over the secret war files, known as the "Pentagon Papers," to the New York Times. It documented how four presidential administrations lied about the Vietnam war.

He was charged with espionage but they were dropped.

Today, he is a political activist and also had something to say about Snowden Daniel Ellsberg Calls Edward Snowden A 'Hero,' Says NSA Leak Was Most Important In American History

Grizz wrote: In reply to Gasoline: What a horrible person.

Agreed, this does not help his image one bit.

Gasoline wrote: I hear he drives a fox body coupe......

....and it has a LS1 under the hood.....

In reply to pinchvalve:

This is why most oaths mention "to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Although IDK what they'd consider domestic at this point. Prolly the Girl Scouts.

Might as well throw a little Ellsberg piece on Bradley Manning while I'm at it.

z31maniac wrote: I'm terrified at anyone who think he didn't do a good thing.

+1, and the guy left his huge income, comfy tropical home and smokin' wife to release this stuff, he made a big sacrifice to expose how the US and UK governments were violating everybody's privacy six ways from Sunday.

Gasoline wrote:

Gasoline wrote: I hear he drives a fox body coupe......

....and it has an Ecoboost under the hood.....

FTFY.

Grizz wrote:

Gasoline wrote:

Gasoline wrote: I hear he drives a fox body coupe......

....and it has an Ecoboost under the hood.....

FTFY.

Project Ugly Horse?

VWguyBruce wrote: . The security clearance is more than checking a box on an application, it's a higher calling with a greater responsibility. The ethical crux here is where we all struggle to make sense of it and we can't make it a black and white issue. It just isn't.

I was almost hired by the CIA as a video editor. I went through several interviews, was investigated and all came back clean. In the very end, I turned down the job. As I told the interviewer.. I couldn't do a job I could not go home and talk about. He actually thanked me for being honest

Bobzilla wrote: ...he likely also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as protect American interests. So, in my book, he has broken no laws. He brought out an illegal act by an American agency as he should be constitutionally bound to do. IMO, those seeking "justice" for his actions are the traitors.

He still broke the law, and if he is confident in his actions, he should stand trial and defend them.

His "actions" also involve talking with some marginal allies of the US while he clearly knows some amount of secret information. The initial actions are likely defendable, his later ones, maybe not.

In reply to slefain:

Am I wrong for thinking an Ecoboost V6 needs to find it's way into an LS or an old 3.8 thunderturd? Even better, an XR7 Cougar.

I'm sure I'm not the only one here with some kind of security clearance, fee free to throw your $0.02 in.

He broke the rules. There are pathways to express displeasure, he didn't follow that path.

Did he do a good thing for the Country, depends on perspective.

Did he do a bad thing for the Country? Depends on perspective.

Technically? Yeah, he should have his ankles duct taped to his ears and butt pirated until his ears nose bleeds.

Your $0.02 may be different.....

aircooled wrote: He still broke the law, and if he is confident in his actions, he should stand trial and defend them.

To want to do that, he'd have to be confident not only in his actions, but that he would be treated justly. These may be two considerations with very different conclusions.

^Probably why he's going to China and Russia. Bad Juju for us if he got drone striked in those countries.

In reply to aircooled:

I'm always troubled that people dont seem to think this far forward about the actions of 'whistleblowers,' by and large.

just because you think you're doing something noble in your mind doesn't mean there are, or should be, no consequences to your act.

like being military, he accepted certain conditions to his taking a position that holds a security clearance.

This isnt about fear of retribution, its about following thru on the actions you've taken. It doesn't matter to me that he's abandoned a 'comfortable salary' to do this, in fact it makes me think less of him that he's even mentioning it as something important.

GameboyRMH wrote:

z31maniac wrote: I'm terrified at anyone who think he didn't do a good thing.

+1, and the guy left his huge income, comfy tropical home and smokin' wife to release this stuff, he made a big sacrifice to expose how the US and UK governments were violating everybody's privacy six ways from Sunday.

I think you are crediting him with a level of logical thought that is yet unproven.

The world is full of people making stupid decisions for a little bit of attention. 5 minutes worth of YouTube surfing will prove just how many people can make monumentally bad decisions for a moment of fame.

Grizz wrote: ^Probably why he's going to China and Russia. Bad Juju for us if he got drone striked in those countries.

So you are suggesting the President of the United States, through the CIA, would order a hit on a US citizen because he talked too much?

The fear mongering is getting thick in here.

i dunno if its fear mongering.

remember this administrations' justice dept memo on drone striking US Citizens?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

and when confronted about it, it took over a week for the whitehouse to respond with wether or not drone striking a civillian was acceptable constitutionally.

SVreX wrote: So you are suggesting the President of the United States, through the CIA, would order a hit on a US citizen because he talked too much?

Likely? No.

Possible? "legal"? Sadly, yes.

Debating it as a theoretical generalization is a lot different than ordering a hit. (I'm not defending it)

SVreX wrote:

Grizz wrote: ^Probably why he's going to China and Russia. Bad Juju for us if he got drone striked in those countries.

So you are suggesting the President of the United States, through the CIA, would order a hit on a US citizen because he talked too much? The fear mongering is getting thick in here.

Yes, I am.

Considering all of the other highly dubious stuff the administration has done/is doing, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Years ago I held a clearance, and you go through a pretty intensive process where your actions are made clear if you break the rules. There was a correct process than what he did to get his point across that wouldn't have violated his clearance, he chose not to do that. Instead he did go to an "enemy" nation and release information about our processes, so yes he needs to be treated as a traitor.

In my opinion, he was a kid looking to make a few bucks or get his name in the news without thinking through what he was doing. In any event, he's going to pay the price for it in some fashion. It's all kind of sad really.

racerdave600 wrote: ...There was a correct process than what he did to get his point across that wouldn't have violated his clearance....

I think from his perspective he might say that although there is a process for this, there was really no way anything would be done since the situation he exposed was obviously cleared and understood by a good number of people in higher positions.

What he did was probably the only way to get anything "done". BTW, I highly suspect nothing will be "done".

aircooled wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: ...There was a correct process than what he did to get his point across that wouldn't have violated his clearance....

I think from his perspective he might say that although there is a process for this, there was really no way anything would be done since the situation he exposed was obviously cleared and understood by a good number of people in higher positions. What he did was probably the only way to get anything "done". BTW, I highly suspect nothing will be "done".

Nothing was "done" the other times this info was released to the public either.

THAT is the issue I have with this whole situation:

This was implemented over a decade ago.

It was approved by the governing body.

It was made public multiple times since then.

A similar enough case was taken to the court prior to it being implemented, and found legal, and constitutional.

All, of a sudden a large number of politicians are against it, and saying it is unconstitutional, and that Obama is evil for implementing it...(when he just didn't stop it, and they have been informed of it for over a decade.. well, it is reviewed. If they actually bothered to read the reports, and info is in debate.)

People have a problem with the laws. they need to fight the laws, not the people doing things within them. our laws do not make us as free as many believe.

want more freedom? change the laws.