Glory Days;1458812 wrote:First of all, its illegal both here and abroad to assasinate someone. and the CIA doesnt operate domestically. assisinations just dont happen, they dont. this isnt the first guy to leak information, and even then, its not exactly information even remotely worth killing for.

Where did I say it was legal? What is this strawman you're dismantling? Nobody is arguing that it's legal.

As for the CIA, I'm aware of its purpose. Are you just assuming they don't ever venture outside their bounds? Even when it may serve their own interests to do so?

As for what info is and isn't worth killing for, when did you become the shot caller for one of these agencies? Do share.

Glory Days;1458814 wrote:have you even read any of his interview? he describes exactly the steps he took down to the lies he told his boss and girlfriend.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

He said he released the information, that right there is punishable due to the fact he signed documents saying he wouldnt release secret information etc. its right at the bottom of every security clearance paperwork you sign in a position like his, it clearly states this.

So you're suggesting that whistle-blowing is a crime if you've signed such a document? That the only legal course of action is to allow potentially illicit activity to transpire in silence?

I've read it. Just wanted to see you express it. I'm a little surprised you did, but your posts on here HAVE always seemed a little authoritarian-leaning.

Perhaps the crooks should seek these positions whereby they can order the carrying out of illicit activity and just have everyone sign something prohibiting them from blowing any whistles legally. I'm sure no crook has ever thought of that, though.

Glory Days;1458812 wrote: assisinations just dont happen, they dont.

You clearly are not familiar with Obama's drone program

Footwedge;1458565 wrote:Snowden and Manning are both American heroes. Only partisan political hacks can separate the 2 for what they did.

In other words, this board should have a field day making up any separation imaginable between them.

Glory Days;1458812 wrote:First of all, its illegal both here and abroad to assasinate someone. and the CIA doesnt operate domestically. assisinations just dont happen, they dont. this isnt the first guy to leak information, and even then, its not exactly information even remotely worth killing for.

gut;1458869 wrote:You clearly are not familiar with Obama's drone program

oh sorry, forgot they are an enemy of the US.....

Glory Days;1459249 wrote:oh sorry, forgot they are an enemy of the US.....

And a traitor isn't?

Do you think for one second that a traitor giving away secrets to the enemy...that they wouldn't attempt assassination failing other options? Or perhaps a better question is, would you NOT want them to be assassinated if national security was at risk?

O-Trap;1458826 wrote:Where did I say it was legal? What is this strawman you're dismantling? Nobody is arguing that it's legal.

As for the CIA, I'm aware of its purpose. Are you just assuming they don't ever venture outside their bounds? Even when it may serve their own interests to do so?

As for what info is and isn't worth killing for, when did you become the shot caller for one of these agencies? Do share.

what would killing him do after he already blew the whistle?

as per what is worth killing. although this is a secret program, its not going to put any US personnel in danger. heck, the FBI and CIA have been tracking spies and double agents for years, how come they arent killed? You ever hear of Robert Hanssen? He was giving information to the Russians for like 20 years or something. why didnt anyone just make him disappear?

gut;1459253 wrote:And a traitor isn't?

didnt know Snowden was taking up arms or supplying weapons to the enemy....

O-Trap;1458826 wrote:
So you're suggesting that whistle-blowing is a crime if you've signed such a document? That the only legal course of action is to allow potentially illicit activity to transpire in silence?

I've read it. Just wanted to see you express it. I'm a little surprised you did, but your posts on here HAVE always seemed a little authoritarian-leaning.

Perhaps the crooks should seek these positions whereby they can order the carrying out of illicit activity and just have everyone sign something prohibiting them from blowing any whistles legally. I'm sure no crook has ever thought of that, though.

thats the problem with your argument, what the government is doing isnt illegal. whether Snowden personally likes it or not doesnt give him the protection to release that information without criminal punishment.

no crook would every get that job due to the background checks involved. obviously its not a perfect system as with this case.

Glory Days;1459255 wrote:didnt know Snowden was taking up arms or supplying weapons to the enemy....

An "enemy combatant" designation completely up to discretion of the POTUS

"Edward Snowden American hero or Government treason "

It's my opinion that it is possible to be both.

Con_Alma;1459303 wrote:"Edward Snowden American hero or Government treason "

It's my opinion that it is possible to be both.

Yes. It remains to be seen what else he may disclose. To this point, I don't think anything he's said remotely borders on treason (although it's still questionable if it's "whistleblower" stuff). Not sure how he'd have access, but saw one blurb there's concern he may have identities and locations of undercover operatives around the world. Without question that would be treasonous to disclose.

gut;1459330 wrote:Yes. It remains to be seen what else he may disclose. To this point, I don't think anything he's said remotely borders on treason (although it's still questionable if it's "whistleblower" stuff). Not sure how he'd have access, but saw one blurb there's concern he may have identities and locations of undercover operatives around the world. Without question that would be treasonous to disclose.

just heard that same thing on the news about having information on undercover agents. if he was just looking to expose the "secret surveillance" programs, why did he need all that information? and then even after having that for whatever reason, go to hong kong/china and tell them specifically how we are spying on them. then leave and go to Russia and possibly Cuba or Ecuador.

i wonder where he is getting money from. he only worked there a few months, not exactly enough to make bank even with a $200,000/year salary, especially in hawaii. i am sure he has to be using cash so his credit cards arent tracked, if they arent already frozen.

Glory Days;1461968 wrote:just heard that same thing on the news about having information on undercover agents. if he was just looking to expose the "secret surveillance" programs, why did he need all that information? and then even after having that for whatever reason, go to hong kong/china and tell them specifically how we are spying on them. then leave and go to Russia and possibly Cuba or Ecuador.

i wonder where he is getting money from. he only worked there a few months, not exactly enough to make bank even with a $200,000/year salary, especially in hawaii. i am sure he has to be using cash so his credit cards arent tracked, if they arent already frozen.

wikileaks

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

On one hand the Top Community Organizer indicates that his administration has an open, transparent policy for whistleblowers. A citizens in the private sector or government employees are responsible for informing wrong doing. But then when this information is presented to the public the Community Organizer is no where to be found for comment and the administration take the pathway of finding “blame” because it his administration corruption policy. Now the legal and judicial system turn on the whistleblowers for doing what is creditable via the Community Organizer own words. Because this is additional scandal for the Obama Corrupt Administration “blame” has to be created as a deterrent to the real issue. So goes the full force attach media and administration to point “blame” except where true “blame and fault” should be directed.

If I was to find information that was against the American people and the Constitution values I to would blow the whistle also. However I also would have some insurance of my safety and if that would be additional security information I would take it also as bargaining chips. You don’t go all in, without knowing your strengths.

If the system is so easy to gain this type of information than the bigger issue is not a whistleblowers but the security of the system. Where is that "blame" bing voiced?
The Obama Administration in their rush to point “blame” to cover up their corruption has made the problem worse. Just like everything Obama is incompetent and his Administration is also.

Offer this guy a deal for his safety, non prosecutions and end the minor issue so the major issue of Administration corruption and system failure can be addressed.
Those that “blame” is where the real treason begins.

ccrunner609;1462276 wrote:the ability for this guy to find foreign countries that are willing to help him just makes Obama and his lack of foreign policy skills laughable.

Name the countries that he is seeking that would have handed him over pre 2009.....

ptown_trojans_1;1462348 wrote:Name the countries that he is seeking that would have handed him over pre 2009.....

All of them? The most recent document i saw was from 2002 and Russia is the only one that i found without an extradition treaty with the US. Cuba, Ecuador and Iceland all extradite.

Glory Days;1462388 wrote:All of them? The most recent document i saw was from 2002 and Russia is the only one that i found without an extradition treaty with the US. Cuba, Ecuador and Iceland all extradite.

The treaty with Cuba is almost 100 years old and we have no diplomatic relations with them. To say they do extradite is quite presumputuous. I think you need to overlay the extradition map with a map of countries that recognize political asylum. Hint, Cuba happens to offer political asylum to U.S. Fugitives

Glory Days;1462388 wrote:All of them? The most recent document i saw was from 2002 and Russia is the only one that i found without an extradition treaty with the US. Cuba, Ecuador and Iceland all extradite.

How about none.
Those countries have had tedious ties with the U.S. for decades. They aren't just going to hand the guy over no questions asked, especially if he is charged as a spy. The Ruskies for one probably want to see what he knows, and then if they do have him want to offer a deal for him.

Ron Paul should probably learn the definition of a word before making a ridiculous statement like that.

Rotinaj;1462470 wrote:Ron Paul should probably learn the definition of a word before making a ridiculous statement like that.

In a literal definition, sure. But the term is commonly and probably most associated with spying on an entity to give intelligence to the other side, usually the enemy of who you are spying on.

Now, by the literal definition, he could be indicted for espionage if he illegally obtained the classified info. But I think the problem lies in the the classified info, more so than any espionage.

I think the statement made its point.

ptown_trojans_1;1462413 wrote:How about none.
Those countries have had tedious ties with the U.S. for decades. They aren't just going to hand the guy over no questions asked, especially if he is charged as a spy. The Ruskies for one probably want to see what he knows, and then if they do have him want to offer a deal for him.

no doubt those countries dont exactly play well with us. but the anointed one isnt going to change that and so far is 0-2. Hong Kong dragged their feet and let him fly out without a passport. Russia i am sure has downloaded everything on his computers by now and could care less where he goes next.

Rotinaj;1462470 wrote:Ron Paul should probably learn the definition of a word before making a ridiculous statement like that.

Well, the dictionaries use the term "competitor," but the point really doesn't change using the dictionary definitions.

Or are they wrong as well?

Glory Days;1459254 wrote:what would killing him do after he already blew the whistle?

Counter-incentive for future whistle blowers? You make an example of one, and you dissuade others. Or, perhaps there are things to which he was privy that he has not let loose yet.

Does it not occur to you that these are plausible?

Glory Days;1459254 wrote:as per what is worth killing. although this is a secret program, its not going to put any US personnel in danger.

...

This seems moot unless you automatically assume that the only way they might go after someone is if it put American lives in danger. So I suppose I should ask: Why do you assume that?

Glory Days;1459254 wrote:heck, the FBI and CIA have been tracking spies and double agents for years, how come they arent killed?

How do you know some aren't? It's not like they're going to go to the Washington Post with it and give an account of what happened. You keeping tabs on all these spies and double agents?

I'm starting to think you must work within the CIA or NSA, given how much you claim to know and/or assume about what they're doing.

Glory Days;1459254 wrote:You ever hear of Robert Hanssen? He was giving information to the Russians for like 20 years or something. why didnt anyone just make him disappear?

Um ... he spends 23 hours a day in solitary in a maximum security federal prison. Pretty sure that's a good way to make someone "go away."