Whitehouse fianlly responds to 'Pardon Edward Snowden' petition

[Guest]

that's not the point

 

the point the politicians are trying to make - that 90% of the raging pitchforks over the internet just aren't listening too - are that you can't deny that Snowden expelled privileged information that he wasn't allowed too

 

as if....Intel hires you and gives you access to R&D information, it's for the purposes of your job towards the company goal. It is still not your information to share to the world. If you have a problem with the company plans, you bring it up in a civilized manner - you don't light a fire and hand out pitchforks. You probably signed paperwork when hired on to be made clear on these kind of things

 

the severity of this is that we're talking about secret government security information and organizations. When you're hired on to these organizations, you're not just given access to this stuff to just do what you want with it. It belongs to the government. You are taking government secrets and sharing them to the world - it's treason. Stop defining it as morally right or wrong, it's still treason

 

the grey line is whether him bringing up the issue "normally" would have worked because of the nature of what was exposed - the NSA was never supposed to be exposed to the public and always be a secret, so the other side of the argument is - "how would Snowden have raised awareness of something that doesn't exist"

 

Hang on. You can't just say 'that's not the point' to my post; they have said that what Snowden did was a risk to national security, i asked why, you then jumped in and said that's not the point.... 

[Real_PhillBert]

You know, there are candidates running for the 2016 Presidential Election that are against the mass government surveillance. The most notable is Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul.

 

I would love to see Rand in office in 2016 but his fund raising campaign is coming up very short, and unfortunately, you need a lot of money to become President. 

[exyia]

Hang on. You can't just say 'that's not the point' to my post; they have said that what Snowden did was a risk to national security, i asked why, you then jumped in and said that's not the point.... 

 

I meant - it's not a point of how much of a risk to national security he exposed

 

the point is that it IS(/WAS) a top secret government agency, and is not his right to share such information. if you're let in on a government secret, it's still not yours to share with the world

[Guest]

I meant - it's not a point of how much of a risk to national security he exposed

 

the point is that it IS(/WAS) a top secret government agency, and is not his right to share such information. if you're let in on a government secret, it's still not yours to share with the world

 

MY point being, the argument that they seem to have made and their reasoning for rejecting the petition, is that what he did WAS a risk to national security. 

 

So, if that's not the point, why are they making it the point?

[exyia]

MY point being, the argument that they seem to have made and their reasoning for rejecting the petition, is that what he did WAS a risk to national security. 

 

So, if that's not the point, why are they making it the point?

 

as 3++ others have already posted, that is the whole point....he exposed government secrets and compromised national security. Whether it was morally right or wrong doesn't matter - it's still treason and has it's consequences

[Guest]

as 3++ others have already posted, that is the whole point....he exposed government secrets and compromised national security. Whether it was morally right or wrong doesn't matter - it's still treason and has it's consequences

 

If you haven't already seen my first post, which i don't think you have as you seem to have just jumped on one of my posts at the opportunity of expressing your thoughts, i asked how the information and secrets he leaked actually compromised national security. 

[Real_PhillBert]

as 3++ others have already posted, that is the whole point....he exposed government secrets and compromised national security. Whether it was morally right or wrong doesn't matter - it's still treason and has it's consequences

 

I'm just going to point out that if you see a burning house, and kick in the front door to save the children inside, you will not be convicted of breaking and entering.

[Admiral Naismith]

You know, there are candidates running for the 2016 Presidential Election that are against the mass government surveillance. The most notable is Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul.

What about the far more reasonable Sanders?

Rand Paul supports the Tea Party. His tax ideas are just ridiculous (taking 14% of a person's low income is going to be tough, while a billionaire can still afford that 3rd Bugatti and a nice pre-late-summer home so he/she has somewhere to go after the post-early-summer home and the late-summer home. We need to fix economic inequality, this is not the way).

Not saying he is as bad as some of our last candidates, but I think Sanders has a better chance.

[blackadder]

Go listen to interviews with senators from the time, both republican and democrat. Language as direct as "I want him hanged" was even a few times

i always found this funny, all we need its the titles to do a freedom of information request. Whistle blowers are protected or should be. These are my sins too and its not like we didn't know they were going on. Strange times we live in.

[exyia]

I'm just going to point out that if you see a burning house, and kick in the front door to save the children inside, you will not be convicted of breaking and entering.

 

but if the officials report that there never was a fire and deny any reports/evidence of one......

 

I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind the call for Treason. You can't deny that what he did was against the law, and everyone with pitchforks keeps forgetting that. They should be arguing against the NSA's existence - not about what Snowden did. It was treason. Probably completely justifiable treason, but still treason and why this particular petition is a waste of time. In a completely fair court, he would be guilty (courtrooms are judgements of the law, not morality)

 

If you haven't already seen my first post, which i don't think you have as you seem to have just jumped on one of my posts at the opportunity of expressing your thoughts, i asked how the information and secrets he leaked actually compromised national security. 

 

because he compromised the very premise of how NSA works.....by secrecy to the public. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. just because it hasn't lead to some big conspiracy hack or data breach doesn't mean it's not a breach of security

[blackadder]

but if the officials report that there never was a fire and deny any reports/evidence of one......

I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind the call for Treason. You can't deny that what he did was against the law, and everyone with pitchforks keeps forgetting that. They should be arguing against the NSA's existence - not about what Snowden did. It was treason. Probably completely justifiable treason, but still treason and why this particular petition is a waste of time. In a completely fair court, he would be guilty (courtrooms are judgements of the law, not morality)

because he compromised the very premise of how NSA works.....by secrecy to the public. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. just because it hasn't lead to some big conspiracy hack or data breach doesn't mean it's not a breach of security

i can't argue against the nsa, they didn't want to do that 1st off, they were smart mathematicians to break codes and find stuff out if my government wants to know what im up to they should of asked, they spied on me and that is treason. All this is about fear and i fear no man or country that has been born yet,i can only be killed once and theres over 330 million people that are equall or better than i.

[Real_PhillBert]

but if the officials report that there never was a fire and deny any reports/evidence of one......

 

I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind the call for Treason. You can't deny that what he did was against the law, and everyone with pitchforks keeps forgetting that. They should be arguing against the NSA's existence - not about what Snowden did. It was treason. Probably completely justifiable treason, but still treason and why this particular petition is a waste of time. In a completely fair court, he would be guilty (courtrooms are judgements of the law, not morality)

 

But now the NSA has admitted that there was indeed a fire.

 

And about the treason part:

Treason - The crime of betraying ones country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=treason&oq=treason&aqs=chrome..69i57.2431j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

I would argue that he did not betray his country, he pointed out that the government was betraying the people. 

 

Did he divulge privileged information? Yes, absolutely. But in my opinion he did not commit treason. 

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

the severity of this is that we're talking about secret government security information and organizations. When you're hired on to these organizations, you're not just given access to this stuff to just do what you want with it. It belongs to the government. You are taking government secrets and sharing them to the world - it's treason. Stop defining it as morally right or wrong, it's still treason

Depends on how you look at it. 

 

Anyone joining the police, military or similar official organizations swears an oath.  That oath is not to serve the government, it is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. 

Seeing as the telecom surveillance programs were obviously unconstitutional, one could argue that Snowden was in fact one of the only officials who decided to uphold the constitution. One could also say that it was the government itself that was committing treason towards the people of the US.

[exyia]

But now the NSA has admitted that there was indeed a fire.

 

And about the treason part:

Treason - The crime of betraying ones country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=treason&oq=treason&aqs=chrome..69i57.2431j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

I would argue that he did not betray his country, he pointed out that the government was betraying the people. 

 

Did he divulge privileged information? Yes, absolutely. But in my opinion he did not commit treason. 

 

but we're not lawyers - I'm sure those that are will be able to find some long, convoluted explanation on how it does quality as treason

 

and in the end, it doesn't solve the real problem - the NSA existing. soooooo, again, this petition is pointless. Say the government agreed and did give him full pardon - the NSA still exists, which is the real problem. all this attention on the whiteblower after he's blown the whistle is a waste of time imo

[Real_PhillBert]

but we're not lawyers - I'm sure those that are will be able to find some long, convoluted explanation on how it does quality as treason

 

and in the end, it doesn't solve the real problem - the NSA existing. soooooo, again, this petition is pointless. Say the government agreed and did give him full pardon - the NSA still exists, which is the real problem. all this attention on the whiteblower after he's blown the whistle is a waste of time imo

 

I agree completely. The petition was never going to make a bit of difference.

 

But getting the government to admit that what it was doing was/is wrong, is a big step. Assuming we can get there. I support shutting down 90% of the three letter agencies. 

[Roland]

Those defending Snowden, you MUST answer for this. Great guy that Snowden.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11673533/British-spies-removed-from-operations-after-Russia-and-China-crack-codes-to-leaked-Snowden-files.html

 

"MI6 has been forced to pull spies out of operations due to Russia and China cracking encrypted documents stolen by US whistleblower Edward Snowden"

[Centurius]

Hang on. You can't just say 'that's not the point' to my post; they have said that what Snowden did was a risk to national security, i asked why, you then jumped in and said that's not the point.... 

The information he released to the world contained information on programs intended to preserve national security and directly compromised active operations in the field. No matter how you twist it, that's compromising national security.

 

But now the NSA has admitted that there was indeed a fire.

 

And about the treason part:

Treason - The crime of betraying ones country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=treason&oq=treason&aqs=chrome..69i57.2431j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 

I would argue that he did not betray his country, he pointed out that the government was betraying the people. 

 

Did he divulge privileged information? Yes, absolutely. But in my opinion he did not commit treason. 

 

You can google definitions but they don't matter legally, the US Code does.

 

18 U.S. Code § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

Then there also is 18 U.S. Code § 793 concerning espionage of which I shall only quote the relevant part as it's a larger one.

 

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

 

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

If you believe he did not commit a crime then advocate for his return so he can stand trial and be judged by his peers. 

[Albatross]

Oh, he should have played by the rulebook of the government that is the problem?

 

 

 

Good God these people are stupid. :mellow:

[Centurius]

Oh, he should have played by the rulebook of the government that is the problem?

 

 

 

Good God these people are stupid. :mellow:

Yes, he should have followed the laws made by the elected Congress and signed by the elected President.

[Roland]

Oh, he should have played by the rulebook of the government that is the problem?

 

 

 

Good God these people are stupid. :mellow:

 

Yes he should have. As I pointed out, that was ignored, he put real lives in danger. He put operations in danger and he had the British drop investigations because their targets found out about how they were tracking and gaining information. Its all in the link. But that is irrelevant really when you look at Case Law and in fact the Law itself. We are a Nation of Laws, if we start throwing them aside, what are we really in the grand scheme of things? He stole the data and decided to play Judge, Jury, and Executioner on who should know what. And guess what it did? Read the link! Unless you think its cool that he put lives at risk!

[Lethal Seraph]

Snowden was very brave to take the bullet for us. He gave us a chance to decide for ourselves (US citizens) what kind of government we should have. Too bad the media is just casting an iron curtain about it and most people aren't informed or rather kept ignorant until you mention their nudes pics.

[Roland]

Snowden was very brave to take the bullet for us. He gave us a chance to decide for ourselves (US citizens) what kind of government we should have. Too bad the media is just casting an iron curtain about it and most people aren't informed or rather kept ignorant until you mention their nudes pics.

 

Can you explain this: telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11673533/British-spies-removed-from-operations-after-Russia-and-China-crack-codes-to-leaked-Snowden-files.html

[Lethal Seraph]

Can you explain this: telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11673533/British-spies-removed-from-operations-after-Russia-and-China-crack-codes-to-leaked-Snowden-files.html

You know what's bad about it is that most Americans could care less about spying foreign countries. Good point there, Snowden did open Pandoras box, but he's merely a medium for other whistlerblowers to leak to the media wikileaks.

[Roland]

You know what's bad about it is that most Americans could care less about spying foreign countries. Good point there, Snowden did open Pandoras box, but he's merely a medium for other whistlerblowers to leak to the media wikileaks.

 

 

The problem is, people want to put him on a pedestal. And maybe I would have been sympathetic if all he did was the Domestic Programs. But he didn't, he decided to be judge, jury and executioner on what people should know, without any real knowledge. The guy is "computer smart" but he doesn't have the background nor the education to fully understand what he gave away and how damaging it is.

 

And no, he isn't a medium, he is a traitor and should really be shot. What if one of those British Agents was killed? What then? You think anyone would care? Look how you are talking about him, even when shown proof that he did a lot more than people think. He put real people in danger, and that is something he "swore" he would never do. He got the job to steal the data, he stole the data and ran right to Assange. If I were a conspiracy theorist, one would probably assume he was a plant.

[b.schesch]

That's what i mean, i don't understand how that's a risk to national security? Other than them no longer being at an advantage as we now know what they're doing... How's that a security risk?

The problem was never security it was just not correct and légal to spy the entire world