Thread: NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

He's a martyr just like Bradley Manning. Godspeed these individuals.

Just follow the money. People in congress don't agree on what time it is unless someone pays them to.

How cash secretly rules surveillance policy - Salon.com

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Just follow the money. People in congress don't agree on what time it is unless someone pays them to.

How cash secretly rules surveillance policy - Salon.com

Ah, the surveillance industrial complex. That makes a lot of sense.

Industrial complexes seem to be the biggest menaces on Earth. The surveillance industrial complex is turning us 1984, the prison industrial complex has many thousands of good people rotting in prison and illegal drug violence and robbery rampant, and the military industrial complex has had us at war for many decades. If those three major centers of mass psychopathic corruption could be shrunk to reasonable levels, the world would be a drastically better place. How do you think we should go about it?

First of all we need a target we can unite behind, and the surveillance industry is the perfect target. It can garner the most support next to marijuana legalization (which we need to dismantle the PIC) and still stands a chance at being taken seriously (unlike a movement pushing for marijuana reform). Once we figure out how to get multiple movements talking, the type of protest or resistance also becomes key.

The "everyone talk like a terrorist" idea is interesting, but we'd need tens of millions of law-abiding citizens across the globe to participate. This isn't necessarily impossible, I'm just at a loss as how to organize such a thing. I'm also not sure if it would be the most effective method. After all, none of these contractors actually care if national security is effective, it doesn't matter if the NSA gets more than it can handle. It's the illusory security that's being provided that keeps them getting paid.

Opposition to the NSA and support for marijuana legalization are both huge right now. By being parts of those movements, we are doing the right stuff for the causes you described. I think there also needs to be mass communication to the public about how the industrial complexes are warping the laws. There is a good bit of it floating around on the internet, but talk about it needs to get a whole lot louder. Anonymous needs to make a video about it. If he already has, I haven't seen it. Every talk radio show in the country needs to be called about it. A lot of celebrities making a huge issue of it would get a lot of people's attention.

Anyone can make an Anonymous video. There is obviously a lot of information on the corrupt collusion between private industry and government that essentially creates an industrial complex (whether its a revolving door such as with the Medical, Food and Financial Industries or government contracts such as with the Military, Surveillance and Prison Industries) but again, we're dealing with manufactured consent and a culture bent over at the waist by distraction. To truly bring awareness to a national level we need strong rhetoric and concise talking points.

The first step is to change the type of rhetoric delivered so it's not so divisive. Note, for example, this political cartoon

Spoiler for political cartoon:

This automatically rubs conservatives the wrong way because it targets corporations in general, which conservatives view as umbrella rhetoric to push socialism. Really, the cartoon is simply talking about how money is imbedded in all aspects of media and has the strongest position to influence the mindset of the population. And obviously, corporations are not the problem (though the fact that they are considered people is one of the greatest losses our democracy has ever experienced), it is a government owned by corporations that creates the problem. Conservatives and Liberals both agree that government collusion with corporations is bad because from the conservative mindset, too much government control leads to totalitarian socialism while from the liberal standpoint, when the government only serves the money rather than the people it's definitively fascism.

So we need to form a new rhetoric which both political ideologies can relate to. Language is one of the number one ways consent is manufactured, to subvert this psychological warfare, we must use our language carefully.

Concise and creative ways to spread this rhetoric is also vital. People simply do not have the attention span and worse, are less likely to care more about their freedom than what the next episode of game of thrones will hold. We essentially have to make use of the same emotional appeal and association based tactics that marketers have been using for the last century. People need not only be frightened into paying attention but also convinced that they can make a real difference. Most people think there is something terribly wrong with this country, few believe they hold the power to prevent this spiral.

It is not enough to clue people into what is wrong with this country, they receive opinions constantly from blockhead know-it-alls who believe they know what is wrong with this country (the answers almost invariably being either the liberals/communists or the conservatives/corporations). People must not only be made aware, through facts that blame neither political ideology, but they must be filled with hope and the motivation to create change as well.

For this, a victory would be extremely useful. Toppling the NSA would be a tremendous victory we could use to push reform throughout the entire collection of industrial complexes. And I believe this victory is possible. We just need the right plan of action.

I'm guessing you suggested I look at this thread because I said that Prism .etc wasn't that serious. Please realize that I was saying that as a comparison to an elementary school shooting, I know which one I would be more concerned about.

My thoughts on this are that Snowden did do the right thing and that he should be pardoned, but I know that that is very unlikely given that he has already been charged. Unfortunately, officials and the like don't often go back on what they said in public statements or announcements, if only to save face, so if Snowden is as smart as he seems, he'll keep his head down.

However, I think that some government surveillance is necessary. The directer of NSA said that over 50 terrorist attacks were stopped as a result of this surveillance and even if he is bending the truth somewhat, surveillance does stop terrorists. Not all terrorists, but quite a few. Where I am in the UK there are such events many times a year, where potential terrorists have been stopped from carrying out their plans by hardworking counter-terrorism units and surveillance departments such as GCHQ and MI5.

Using surveillance to highlight suspicious behaviors, patterns or correspondence should be implemented in today's society, but strict laws will need to make sure that this power is not abused. I'm just disappointed that Snowden will probably not be a free man for many years now, and that he had to leave the "Land of the Free" for fear of being arrested, imprisoned or persecuted. My opinion of course, so do feel free to disagree with anything I have written, but be aware that I am unlikely to change my mind, unless you show really good reasoning or evidence...

I'm of the opinion that the best way to prevent terrorists is to stop creating them. Unfortunately the entire military industrial complex profits off terrorism. The Surveillance industry and Military industry end up feeding each other in this respect.

If the definition of terrorist is expanded, this type of surveillance can be used to prevent activists, not just terrorists. And it has, before. Israel has banned people from flight because it observed twitter feed and a protest being planned. I don't see this being a very far-fetched strategy.It could essentially be used to remove the power of people over their democracy. It could be used to watch for possible union organizers or organizers of any kind.

If such surveillance is a necessity, as you appear to believe, then it must be utilized with more transparency and accountability. It cannot be a secret police.

People have been posting shit on facebook about snowden being a distraction from mannings trial.

He did basically just tell us what we should have already known, but it sounds like some conspiracy theorist bull.

Originally Posted by GJames

I'm guessing you suggested I look at this thread because I said that Prism .etc wasn't that serious. Please realize that I was saying that as a comparison to an elementary school shooting, I know which one I would be more concerned about.

My thoughts on this are that Snowden did do the right thing and that he should be pardoned, but I know that that is very unlikely given that he has already been charged. Unfortunately, officials and the like don't often go back on what they said in public statements or announcements, if only to save face, so if Snowden is as smart as he seems, he'll keep his head down.

However, I think that some government surveillance is necessary. The directer of NSA said that over 50 terrorist attacks were stopped as a result of this surveillance and even if he is bending the truth somewhat, surveillance does stop terrorists. Not all terrorists, but quite a few. Where I am in the UK there are such events many times a year, where potential terrorists have been stopped from carrying out their plans by hardworking counter-terrorism units and surveillance departments such as GCHQ and MI5.

Using surveillance to highlight suspicious behaviors, patterns or correspondence should be implemented in today's society, but strict laws will need to make sure that this power is not abused. I'm just disappointed that Snowden will probably not be a free man for many years now, and that he had to leave the "Land of the Free" for fear of being arrested, imprisoned or persecuted. My opinion of course, so do feel free to disagree with anything I have written, but be aware that I am unlikely to change my mind, unless you show really good reasoning or evidence...

I guess you aren't as gung ho surveillance as I thought you might be, but I don't think preventing terrorist attacks is an excuse for trampling on the 4th Amendment on any level. The 4th needs to be honored completely, even at the expense of lives, if necessary. That is why I think the NSA scandal is much more serious than 20 kids and 6 adults allegedly being shot, as extremely awful as that would be. The 4th Amendment is one of the major federal rules that tells the government they are not allowed to impose a police state. We should never budge a millimeter from it. It is getting more and more ignored as time goes on, but we have to preserve it and bring it back into full force. Without it, we absolutely 100% guaranteed would go totalitarian 1984 style.

I despise terrorists, but the reason the scum wants to destroy us is that the U.S. government has been helping fight Israel's wars for the past 65 years and branched out into screwing big time with other countries in the Middle East and Greater Middle East, partly because of escalations resulting from our dedicated military alliance with Israel. That does not at all condone targeting civilians. I am a big believer in handling things through communication and votes, but the fact is that terrorists are what they are, and playing games in the Middle East stirs them up. That is how things work. It is a fact of life, and it needs to be considered.

I don't think Israel ever had any business being established in the first place. At this point, since it's many generations later, I understand that kicking people out of Israel isn't a viable answer. Howerver, I do believe that if the people of Israel want to have a small country in a big hornets' nest that opposing factions consider a holy land of each faction's kind, they need to do it on their own. Good luck to them. We can't keep spending so much money and life while trampling our Bill of Rights over that little country that is based in an ethnocentric concept. If we quit playing that insane game, we will solve our terrorism problem. We don't have to go 1984.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

People have been posting shit on facebook about snowden being a distraction from mannings trial.

He did basically just tell us what we should have already known, but it sounds like some conspiracy theorist bull.

I think the Snowden situation has given Manning a lot more attention. Tons of people didn't even know who Bradley Manning is until Snowden broke the news about the NSA and illustrated that reporting government corruption is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I guess you aren't as gung ho surveillance as I thought you might be, but I don't think preventing terrorist attacks is an excuse for trampling on the 4th Amendment on any level. The 4th needs to be honored completely, even at the expense of lives, if necessary. That is why I think the NSA scandal is much more serious than 20 kids and 6 adults allegedly being shot, as extremely awful as that would be. The 4th Amendment is one of the major federal rules that tells the government they are not allowed to impose a police state. We should never budge a millimeter from it. It is getting more and more ignored as time goes on, but we have to preserve it and bring it back into full force. Without it, we absolutely 100% guaranteed would go totalitarian 1984 style.

I despise terrorists, but the reason the scum wants to destroy us is that the U.S. government has been helping fight Israel's wars for the past 65 years and branched out into screwing big time with other countries in the Middle East and Greater Middle East, partly because of escalations resulting from our dedicated military alliance with Israel. That does not at all condone targeting civilians. I am a big believer in handling things through communication and votes, but the fact is that terrorists are what they are, and playing games in the Middle East stirs them up. That is how things work. It is a fact of life, and it needs to be considered.

I don't think Israel ever had any business being established in the first place. At this point, since it's many generations later, I understand that kicking people out of Israel isn't a viable answer. Howerver, I do believe that if the people of Israel want to have a small country in a big hornets' nest that opposing factions consider a holy land of each faction's kind, they need to do it on their own. Good luck to them. We can't keep spending so much money and life while trampling our Bill of Rights over that little country that is based in an ethnocentric concept. If we quit playing that insane game, we will solve our terrorism problem. We don't have to go 1984.



I think the Snowden situation has given Manning a lot more attention. Tons of people didn't even know who Bradley Manning is until Snowden broke the news about the NSA and illustrated that reporting government corruption is a good thing.

Not being an American myself, I can't really comment on the Bill of Rights or the Amendments, but I don't think I would be far wrong if the US government and indeed the UK government and many others around the world see such things as mere guidelines that should be stuck to when in the public eye. There are some things that governments do that completely transcend the laws and morals of society, but they are most likely viewed as necessary to that countries safety. Guantanamo for example, and who knows what else.

On the flip-side, I believe that a good deal of people, specifically US citizens as they are generally quite vocal about their government, use these kind of things to justify all kinds of stuff. The whole malarkey with the Second Amendment and the planned gun control laws is a good example of the US government trying to do something right (in my opinion) and the powerful conservatives shouting them down with cries of "When will they stop!", "They're going to ban all guns!" or "What about the 2nd Amendment?!".

Actually thinking about it, this whole thing sounds a lot like religion, where the powerful leaders use these apparently "sacred" laws to control the general population but choose to disregard them if they feel the need to do so. And then the general population point to these laws when a controversial topic comes up in Congress, such as the NSA, gay marriage or gun laws.

No, the Bill of Rights is not a set of guidelines. It is part of our founding and central document, the Constitution. If the government is not limited by the Constitution, the government has no boundaries. If the Bill of Rights is not upheld, there is nothing legally stopping the government from going totalitarian. What do you suggest would stop them? If history has taught us anything, it is that governments cannot be trusted. Do you think they can? The history of Europe and Asia in the second quarter of the 20th Century screams otherwise.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, the Bill of Rights is not a set of guidelines. It is part of our founding and central document, the Constitution. If the government is not limited by the Constitution, the government has no boundaries. If the Bill of Rights is not upheld, there is nothing legally stopping the government from going totalitarian. What do you suggest would stop them? If history has taught us anything, it is that governments cannot be trusted. Do you think they can? The history of Europe and Asia in the second quarter of the 20th Century screams otherwise.

Of course they can't. My point was that many high-up politicians and people with a lot of power, and I mean a metric shit-ton of power, use them as public guidelines. Do you really think that the US Government hasn't violated most, if not all of the articles in the Constitution?

Bear in mind that I have no in-depth knowledge of the Constitution, other than a bunch of settlers wrote it up in 1776? Sometime like that, after they got annoyed with paying taxes to the British. I'll go and have a look at it...

EDIT: 1787. Close!

Originally Posted by GJames

Of course they can't. My point was that many high-up politicians and people with a lot of power, and I mean a metric shit-ton of power, use them as public guidelines. Do you really think that the US Government hasn't violated most, if not all of the articles in the Constitution?

Oh, I very much agree with that. The government is carpet bombing the Bill of Rights. It's probably the biggest deal in American history. It's just a matter of time before enough people realize the significance of it.

Originally Posted by GJames

Bear in mind that I have no in-depth knowledge of the Constitution, other than a bunch of settlers wrote it up in 1776? Sometime like that, after they got annoyed with paying taxes to the British. I'll go and have a look at it...

EDIT: 1787. Close!

Close. 1789.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Close. 1789.

Ah, I looked up the Constitution, it's all the same to us English...

Originally Posted by GJames

Actually thinking about it, this whole thing sounds a lot like religion, where the powerful leaders use these apparently "sacred" laws to control the general population but choose to disregard them if they feel the need to do so. And then the general population point to these laws when a controversial topic comes up in Congress, such as the NSA, gay marriage or gun laws.

The difference between the Bill of Rights and religion is that the Bill of Rights gives us rights that the government can't take away. It's "sacred" because we know that without it, we probably wouldn't have free speech, freedom of religion, right to a lawyer, etc. Religion tries to control our lives and tell us what we can't do. They're actually complete opposites.

How are either of these men not guilty? I am pretty sure to handle 'Top Secret' documents, they would have had it explained to them that they can not spread the information. They sign something pledging to keep their mouths shut, and then don't. Sounds clearly guilty to me. I know every one who has posted so far has a different view, but what the hell, I figure I will go ahead and be the bad guy you guys can fume at. Let it fly.

Sure, but all they're guilty of is breaking their nondisclosure agreement - that's not the same as being guilty of treason against their own country. They were simply pointing out the crimes of certain top-level agencies against America and/or American citizens. How is that treason? Of course the agencies themselves want them convicted and hated, to take the heat off of themselves!

So the important question is really, exactly WHAT are Snowden and Manning guilty of? Is it treason against America, or only breaking their vow of secrecy when they saw the horrible crimes being committed in secret by the government?

Treason in US constitution=

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted


So, that limits the question to did they commit an act of war (no) and did they give aid to the enemy.

A lot of info was disclosed by both men, do any of you know if some of it aided terrorists? Manning disclosed a lot of details about specific tactics in a war setting. If any of that could give a tactical aid to an enemy, he is screwed. Snowden's info seems only vaguely to relate to military issues. I am sure they will say he took away the element of surprise in counter-terrorism. Does that count as specifically aiding an enemy? That is a stretch.

My assumption with out knowing more is Manning= traitor, while Snowden = federal crime short of treason.

So, if not a traitor, Snowden still blatantly acted against federal law. Is anything he disclosed a crime, or is it all covered under the patriot act? The patriot act seems bad in general, but it is currently law.

Snowden spoke out for the American public. Is the American public the enemy? He revealed that we are all being spied on. He broke his contract, but it was for the justifiable purpose of reporting mass 4th Amendment violation by the government. If that is wrong, then where is the line drawn? If Snowden had knowledge that the government was going to nuke every major city in the United States, would he be committing treason or be a traitor for reporting it? No, he would be standing up for his country against a rogue government. At what point can the government be considered the enemy? Once the government becomes the enemy, aiding and comforting them by working for them and keeping their evil secrets becomes the act of treason.

I am not saying that the government is what I consider an enemy because of this. I think they have gone way too far, and the government needs to be majorly revamped. We have a Bill of Rights that is being ignored, and that has to change. We have an incredible basis for our laws-- the United States Constitution. I am a major believer in it. We have got to get back to respecting it. It is the basis of our system. I don't see the system as an enemy. I want to protect the system, much more than many in our current government do. That can happen when enough people stop voting for Remoblicrats (aside from Libertarians in Remoblicrat clothing) and start voting for Libertarians.

The issue comes down to 'we must repeal The Patriot Act'

As long as it stands, Snowden was not reporting a crime, he was just breaking security.

You don't believe violating the 4th amendment rights of every American citizen is a crime? The NSA was "breaking security" - the security we're all supposed to have to not be subject to spying by our own government unless and until we're suspected of being or harboring or sympathizing with terrorists. It would be different if the public had been let in on the decision to do away with the 4th amendment, but it was done in secret. That sounds more like something that would happen in China or North Korea than the America I grew up in!

Originally Posted by sivason

The issue comes down to 'we must repeal The Patriot Act'

As long as it stands, Snowden was not reporting a crime, he was just breaking security.

We do need to repeal the Patriot Act. That is because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is higher law than federal statute.

You would have to present a more clear case to me of how this all violates the 4th amendment. Perhaps I am not understanding the issues. I also wonder how much you guys are imagining surveillance beyond what has been discussed on the news. It is not like an NSA guy is listening to me talk dirty with my wife. Or am I wrong? Please feel free to make a clear case for the 4th being violated, if you wish. So far, I do not see it.

Do not get me wrong, I was furious when the Bush cronies passed all this anti-terror crap, but it did pass. It is law, so unless it is repealed,,, Snowden is a criminal and the NSA is not.

You can read all sorts of ideals into the constitution, but please stick to explaining how it defies the word of law, not your perceived view of what law should mean.