Traitor?.. or Defender of Civil Liberties?

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

This dude is obviously a plant or a domestic spy. Not a tree too tall to hang him from. Remember the phrase, "all enemies foreign or domestic?" From the highest limb I say.

[+Dave 2,318]

and he's hiding in Hong Kong? Things that make you go hmmmmm. He needs to hang next to Bradley Manning.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Why can't he be both, if we were to reach the Godwin point and be overly dramatic, was von Stauffenberg a traitor or was he doing the right thing ?

 

Sometimes doing the right thing is breaking your pledges and disobeying orders, as you should know.

 

In the present case there was no "proper channel" to report to before whistle blowing so, unlike Manning, he did not fail to follow procedure before jumping to acts that could be qualified as treason.

 

Is the revealed information ground-breaking and surprising ? Not really.

Does the information reveal that the NSA and CIA might be overextending their mandate ? Possibly.

Is the surveillance society and reliance on technological surveillance instead of human intel mostly theater, costly and globally inefficient while degrading civil liberties ? Certainly.

Does that same surveillance society and security theater change anything for the average citizen, for better or for worse ? Nope.

Do you need to grow up and stop adding more and more rituals to defeat bogeymen who have repeatedly shown that your rituals are ineffective ? Probably.

 

What was the lesson of 9/11 ? Why did it happen ? Because experts, with human intel, were not heard...

And how did you fix it ? By investing more and more into technological intel, data mining and almost scuttling traditional human intel...

 

The only reason you haven't had any major problem since is not because how effective this intel setup and your security theater are, but the fact that your enemies just don't give enough of a damn about you and are even more incompetent, 9/11 was a fluke, the perfect combination of some imagination on one side and utter political failure on the other, it had nothing to do with a lack of intel.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

[+Gepard 10,230]

 

 

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

The reason he can't be both is because he is a traitor. 13 knots.

[+JonathanRL 973]

One would say Gepart might know a thing or two about how similar these things are...

 

 

The reason he can't be both is because he is a traitor. 13 knots.

The founding fathers of your nation where Traitors to the British Crown. Does that also make their actions wrong per default?

Edited June 11, 2013 by JonathanRL

[JediMaster 451]

The point is I'm thousands of times more likely to lose a family member, or myself, to a drunk driver, cancer, heart disease, criminal, or multiple other things than a terrorist attack.

 

What civil liberties are infringed upon to prevent heart disease? To prevent cancer? Why don't ALL cars have breathalyzers on them to prevent people from driving drunk instead of just those who've been convicted of doing it already? It's not even a right (driving), it's just a privilege. Around 34,000 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents last year. That's 10x the 9/11 deaths, and that is one of the lowest numbers on record, a drop of 10,000 since 2007. In other words, since 9/11 we've lost less than 4000 people to terrorist attacks, but we've lost half a MILLION in cars. Why aren't there stricter controls on driving?? Because the people won't allow it, that's why. You can't mess with their cars!

 

We're told we basically cannot make any attempt to disarm the criminals because that won't work...yet we're supposed to believe we can stop the terrorists? We can't prevent a teenager from killing dozens in a school, but we can stop a well-organized group of suicidal fanatics from killing that many as long as they come from outside the US? That is contradictory. Either we can't stop the terrorists, or we can stop the criminals. It can't be both ways.

 

I'm saying we can't stop the terrorists, and in an effort to prevent it we've given up too much of what it means to be an American living in America. When the choices are "police/nanny state" (the only difference is in your outlook, the end results are the same) or "freedom but vulnerable to those who hate us", I choose the latter because we're STILL vulnerable anyway.

 

How can PRISM be ok, but a nat'l gun registry NOT be? It's the same thing, just the data collected is different...but the data can be misused in the same way, as Jonathan pointed out. If you think any attempt to track the guns, the things that KILL people, is wrong, how can you possibly believe tracking just about EVERYTHING else is ok?

 

It's 100% contradictory. BTW--did it ever occur to you that they don't NEED a gun registry if they can track your phone calls, emails, online purchases, receipts, and other things to see who actually has what guns ANYWAY? PRISM will create a de facto gun registry by its very nature.

[+Dave 2,318]

JM none of what the government does makes any damn sense. Those two idiots in Boston used pressure cookers, so lets ban those too by the governments logic. There is no right answer in this. Bottom line is the US government has its head so far up its own ass, it does know which way is up.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Traitor or defender of civil liberties, is often a question of time, and side. Usually the stronger or winning side prevails in opinion. About time, it can be long before a traitor becomes a defender of civil liberties (Nelson Mandela), or sometimes the contrary (Oliver Cromwell).

 

The question gets clearer when it comes to the motivations of the men/women, either if their choice came from pure debate of conscience, or from greed or political agenda. In that sight, at the Nazis, Kurt Gerstein who risked own's and family's lives for his Christian principles, was a much more decent "traitor" than the conspirators of July 20 who turned coats only when the tide of war turned against them.

 

Regarding the USA, John Brown was a traitor at the time of his capture by the US Army, and became a defender of civil liberties a few years later in the songs of that same US Army. In the same Civil War, most of the Federal officers who joined the Confederate side did not choose to do so before the US Army was ordered to march against the secessionist States, even while still considered members of the Union. All of these officers, including Robert Lee, saw that as a divorce between the Government and the principles the President had sworn to uphold, which liberated them from their oath to that Government and these constitutional principles, as they were now conflicting. Defenders of civil liberties in their own mind, they were not tried as traitors when the South lost the war.

[+JonathanRL 973]

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/

Where in the US is Paul Revere and how many lamps is he carrying? Let the RSA find out as we go hunt for the terrorists! ;-)

[+EMCON360 215]

Without Reservation Or Purpose Of Evasion.As My Farther Used To Tell Me Its Area 52 You Need To Worry About.As For This Poor Soul Guilty On Both Counts.Can Not See The Forest For The Trees.Nothing New Here Except How Gov Uses Data.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Some very interesting comments gentlemen..thank you :)

[+Jug 99]

I'm with Dave on this one.  He hit the issue right on the spot.

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

The only people who need to worry about PRISM or any other part of this mess are people who are terrorist. Both in and outside the borders. Makes perfect sense to me. Collect cell phone numbers and IP addresses run them through an algorithm that sorts out and compares patterns. If for example I download "Inspire" magazine every month then I might be a Tango. If I call and email and chat with an Egyptian engineering student who studies in Hamburg Germany.... then I might be a Tango. If I text people who like to bomb abortion clinics....then I might be a Tango. If I am in the KKK....then I am probably too stupid to be a Tango. Birds of a feather flock together. People living in 21st Century America need to realize something. Sit down pet the dog drink a beer, take our buckskin jackets off and understand that some dipshit PFC working at Ft. Meade could care less if you look at porn sites.

[+JonathanRL 973]

The only people who need to worry about PRISM or any other part of this mess are people who are terrorist.

 

Who decides who is the Terrorist? The people in control of PRISM. Do you know who will use the system in 20 years? Or 30?

Edited June 16, 2013 by JonathanRL

[+Brain32 265]

Post 9/11, people were accusing the government of not doing enough to prevent it from happening. 

 

Umm didn't they(your government) like had a million of opportunities to nail Osama years before 9/11? 

 

And I'm not talking about hacking his cell phone and talking him to death but with stuff that go booom...

[Centurion-1 1,228]

Well, while the NSA and all the other three letter agencies probably mean well, it causes a hell of mess when they are given too free reins and not enough congressional / civil insight. And no, the executive branch alone is not enough. I am currently reading The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, and it is ripe with examples from the cold war years of what can happen..

 

Anyways, around here the constitution is above all other law, agreements or whatever NDAs you can cook up. So if you need to break some laws or contracts to reveal/stop activity that violates the constitution that would be OK. And I think that is a healthy, non-nonsense approach.

[+Jug 99]

I guess the military personnel who have died in Iraq and in Afghanistan didn't die during time of war.  I think they would take exception quite seriously if they could, but they are dead. 

[Ruggbutt 45]

While I'm not doing anything morally, ethically or legally wrong my government is spying on me and the rest of the citizenry and doing so illegally.  Is dude a traitor cuz he exposed the unconstitutional actions of the U.S. government?  I mean, cuz the government is and has been acting illegally with the Patriot Act, NDAA, the Anti-Terrorism bill, etc.  You can't have it both ways, and just because a bill is passed by traitorous politicians and is wrong and anti to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does not make it legal.  If congress passed a bill tomorrow saying it was ok smack a person of asian descent every time you saw one, technically said bill would be "law", correct?  But it's not.  The Constitution states that bills passed that do not abide by what's written in the document are illegal.  Personally, I think dude had a lot of balls to stand up to the Fed which thinks it can do whatever it wants to whoever it wants.  He doesn't fit the definition of traitor either.  He's more of a whistleblower.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Ruggbutt

[JediMaster 451]

The problem is there wasn't a law that said "you cannot reveal the PRISM program". Then it would be exactly as you said...an illegal law, or rather a law protecting an illegal program. Since instead it was "classified", that puts it into a different category. Now it's about running afoul of the laws dealing with breaking classification, which as noted here and elsewhere is a serious matter. There's no clause that says "however, if you reveal something that is classified that is illegal or immoral, that's different." Depending on the level and the information involved it can be considered treason, which is the worst crime there is according to the Constitution. If a foreign spy had found out about PRISM and this story had broken in a Chinese or Iranian paper, no one would say "whistleblower."

 

It's the same deal as not following an illegal/immoral order. YOU determine your CO gave such an order, and refuse to follow it. Yet technically that's insubordination and you can have varying degrees of reprimands for that. I suppose a courts martial would determine if the order you failed to obey was illegal or immoral, and if they side with you you're in the clear (and I guess your CO is in trouble?) but if they do not then you're screwed.

 

Snowden broke the law by what he felt was whistleblowing (and yet in reality was nothing more than specifics on a program pretty much everyone already knew or suspected existed). I can only determine by what I've seen in the news that this guy was a real naive idealistic clown who actually feels that he's being a hero by doing this...even though what he did will arguably not change a thing for the better, except embarrass the US in foreign relations and cause the program to be renamed, retooled, and rehidden. He just isn't smart enough to realize that his "sacrifice" was unnecessary and futile.

 

Will this stop this program? Of course not. Will some people perhaps lose their jobs in an aim to appear to be doing something? Probably. Yet they'll just be shuffled around and given other jobs elsewhere for the same or more money.

 

The only thing that is certain is Snowden has ruined his life, and seriously screwed up the lives of those close to him, for a cause that was doomed to lose.

Edited July 7, 2013 by JediMaster

[+CrazyhorseB34 937]

PRISM was legal. The docs Snowden dropped where the authorizations signed by a FISA judge! The whole lawful order idea is misguided. Snowden never witnessed a criminal act in progress to initate any type of lawful order defense. He just assumed and second guessed what he was supposed to do. The whole meaning of duty is to do stuff you really don't want to do sometimes because it must be done. The whole machine break down we breakdown theory. Snowden did not witness a murder based off of any of this information. Snowden was hired to dig a trench. Not to put bodies in it. People dig trenches every day. Do trench diggers run away tell others what they think the reason why their boss told them to dig a trench? See how absurd this is? Snowden took it upon himself by his own public admission too seek leakable information. He is no hero for civil liberties. He is a criminal and a spy.

[+Gepard 10,230]

The idea of systems like Prism is to get the neccessary informations to protect the state. So it was all around the world and so it is still today. The americans now have  a bad press and the british too. But to be honest, the others make the same. The french do it and the russians, the chinese and and and ...

Of course it is a violation of the civil rights of the citicens. But it is the common job of secret services. They do their job on basic of the laws of their contries.

But how efficient are this data mining systems? The NSA get so much informations, that they are nearly unable to find the gold in the mass of sand. Or with other words the best place to hide a tree is a wood.

Its the stupid way to replace human int with technology. Who collect all will find nothing.

[Snailman 517]

IF we eat the bullcrap of terrorism he might be a traitor. But since we do not, he might not be. If he is the enemy of my enemy is he my friend? Hard question. Everyone knows that 90% of world terrorism are funded certain governments ... those governments are the enemies of their own citizens, too..  BUT

 

something is stinking in this story. Why he exposes stuff againt the US authorities only? By my opinion the mosad is far more dangerous... I think this whole thing is just a circus... a spectacular distracion.

 

 

PS.  the US foreign relation cannot be ruined more anyway. The relations between governments do not reflect the relations between people of each nations and their governments. To explain, our governments may be big friends (vassals rather) but if  I hate the US government like shit that does not mean i have problems with the american people in general.. etc etc.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Snailman

[FanBoy 0]

Who decides who is the Terrorist? The people in control of PRISM. Do you know who will use the system in 20 years? Or 30?

Do you realy believe that if in 20 years from now, if a immoral government comes into power they will be unable to create their own eavesdropping system?

 

Did Himmler say "The previous goverment had no death camps. Thus we can't have any."?

 

If  a tyrant comes into power he will misuse  whatever is given to him. If some instrument does not exist that he need, he will create it.

 

It have been admitted many times before that intelligence agencies use illegal means to obtain information. What was Snowden expecting to find at his new workplace?

 

I wonder if Snowden is concerned about the possible infringement on civil liberties of the citizens by the intellingence agencies of the countries he tried to flee to.  

 

Snowden is a traitor and should be treated as such.