Establishment renders harsh verdict o...

Establishment renders harsh verdict on Snowden

There are 94 comments on the Politico story from Jun 12, 2013, titled Establishment renders harsh verdict on Snowden. In it, Politico reports that:

He is the toast of the libertarian left and the libertarian right. But for most of the political establishment, across the ideological spectrum, it has taken only a few days to conclude that Edward Snowden is nothing less than a dangerous villain.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Politico.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#1 Jun 12, 2013
Establishment = Big Brother

(and Big Brother is watching you!)

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#2 Jun 12, 2013
He broke the National Security Laws, he had previously sworn to serve....he is guilty as hell, no dispute....
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#4 Jun 12, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
He broke the National Security Laws, he had previously sworn to serve....he is guilty as hell, no dispute....
we have whistleblower laws which he should fall under for that very reason. I am sorry you think the gov needs to spy on everyone to keep you safe. I am sorry you so wilingly give up your freedoms for nothing. Im sorry you sing the praises of "the land of the free" to help you feel better about your situation.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#5 Jun 12, 2013
I find the government response rather humorous. It literally makes me laugh. Oh the hypocrisy.

So let's get this right. The US Government through the NSA violated and broke the law of the land. The US Constitution. They violated the right to privacy and violated the right against illegal search and seizures.

Well, they were busted. A worker within the contracted firm of Booz Allen released documents showing this violation of the constitution. And since the constitution is the law of the land, the government/NSA committed a crime.

But the information was classified. So the government classified the secret data mining (which we all knew was going on, but, ppl were called whackos for saying it) making it illegal to release the data. Basically, covering their own ass on the crime they committed against the people.

So know you get all of the talking heads out there. This is treason, it's a felony, we need to hunt this guy and make him "disappeared" (as reported in the guardian). He should be tried for treason, blah blah blah.

Now I will be the little guy in the back that raises his hand and coughs and says, "But were you not the ones that violated the law in the first place? And the release of the documents were just uncovering the cover up you put into place of your crime?"

Think about that for minute people.....

So what was the crime? The release of the documents, or, the fact the government was violating the constitution. And should Snowden go to jail, then should not the members of the government go to jail as well for their violation of the constitution? Since the constitution is the law of the land....?

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#6 Jun 12, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
He broke the National Security Laws, he had previously sworn to serve....he is guilty as hell, no dispute....
He broke a law that was designed to cover up the fact that the government was breaking the law themselves.

Read my post above without preconceived notions.
Womba

Stillwater, OK

#7 Jun 12, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
He broke the National Security Laws, he had previously sworn to serve....he is guilty as hell, no dispute....
Then again (for libertarians) "Never let a crisis go to waste."--Rahm Emanuel
Gary

Bellingham, WA

#8 Jun 12, 2013
The real scandal here is the government's
using private companies to do the work
of the CIA and the NSA and all the other
U.S. government's intelligence gatherers.

Private contractors cannot be trusted with
highly classified materials. They have
no sense of loyalty to America. Their only
interest is in the billions of dollars they
get paid to do the work that government should be doing.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

#9 Jun 12, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
He broke a law that was designed to cover up the fact that the government was breaking the law themselves.
Read my post above without preconceived notions.
The President is in charge, and:

"When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." Richard M. Nixon

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#10 Jun 12, 2013
Lamer wrote:
<quoted text>
we have whistleblower laws which he should fall under for that very reason. I am sorry you think the gov needs to spy on everyone to keep you safe. I am sorry you so wilingly give up your freedoms for nothing. Im sorry you sing the praises of "the land of the free" to help you feel better about your situation.
I understand the point of whistleblower laws, but if it comes to that versus our National Security?.....I pick us.....besides, i am not sure how they work in this type situation?...and he did swear an Oath....

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#11 Jun 12, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>.and he did swear an Oath....
And so did every government official and military member. However, the government violates the their oath on a daily basis.

Thus showing the lack of honor and morality on their part.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#12 Jun 12, 2013
The DNC is expecting Obama's Machine to open its data base for grazing, they organize in fear or the 'dream deferred'. The list work has been farmed to Verizon, ATT, et al.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#13 Jun 12, 2013
Weird....Beck loves him, as do Rand Paul and...Michael Moore. Boehner hates him, as does...Feinstein. This is all across party and ideological lines.

Myself, I generally support the guy's efforts, although his claims of 'criminality' don't appear to be accurate. There's NO real evidence that the Obama Administration broke Bush-era laws about spying, these went through a judge as was required.

But that doesn't make spying good....even when it's justified by anti-terrorist claims.

Not a simple issue...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#14 Jun 12, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
I find the government response rather humorous. It literally makes me laugh. Oh the hypocrisy.
So let's get this right. The US Government through the NSA violated and broke the law of the land. The US Constitution. They violated the right to privacy and violated the right against illegal search and seizures.
..EDITED.......?
Not if they went before a judge, as FISA requires.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#15 Jun 12, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>I understand the point of whistleblower laws, but if it comes to that versus our National Security?.....I pick us.....besides, i am not sure how they work in this type situation?...and he did swear an Oath....
You still think this is for "national security". That is all i hear since 9/11 is "its for National security". No, our national security will not be harmed if our gov doesnt spy on everyone of us; infact i would say our security as a country would increase.

All this "for national security" reminds me of "think of the kids". You think just stating that its for national security that is must be ok without any other debate.

Well i got news for you, i am not willing to give up all these freedoms just b/c some of you "think" its needed for national security without being able to elaborate on why such harsh measures are needed. Freedom has a cost, and i have zero problems paying it, even if it means costing american lives; including my own.
some court

Laurinburg, NC

#16 Jun 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if they went before a judge, as FISA requires.
yes a judge that rubber stamps 99.99% of it. and is led by someone who keeps trying to stop congress from seeing the process rulings etc. not that congress whould care worthless as they are. plus chances are alot of them whould go to jail if this was found unconstitutional by a REAL court.
Lamer

Hopkins, MN

#17 Jun 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Weird....Beck loves him, as do Rand Paul and...Michael Moore. Boehner hates him, as does...Feinstein. This is all across party and ideological lines.
Myself, I generally support the guy's efforts, although his claims of 'criminality' don't appear to be accurate. There's NO real evidence that the Obama Administration broke Bush-era laws about spying, these went through a judge as was required.
But that doesn't make spying good....even when it's justified by anti-terrorist claims.
Not a simple issue...
Daily Show on Monday had a great piece about not that the gov. was spying on everyone, but that it didnt need to break the law to do so. The greater meaning that we have checks and balances as we, including the founding fathers expected gov. to overstep their bounds. In this case, it was the FISA court (judicial branch) whom did not check that overstep of power from the exectutive branch. The FISA court has turned to rubber stamping everything while only a 0.003% nonapproval rating.

Just because 1 branch help cover another branch's activity, doesnt quite mean its "legal". Everyone is trying to Bash on Obama but i feel that the federal judges of the FISA court are more to blame for this as we expect the executive branch to over step; its just no one stopped them.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#18 Jun 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if they went before a judge, as FISA requires.
Even then, they have to provide probable cause. As the fourth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this instance, all of the phone records, internet traffic, emails could all be considered effects. So without a warrant issued by a judge for probable cause, the seizure of those effects are illegal.

Now, that raises the question, did the judge sign a warrant for all of the data collection? If not, then the US Government has committed a crime. If the judge did sign the warrants, then, where is the evidence for probable cause to back it up? If there is none, just a suspicion or accusation, then the judge committed a crime. All crimes against the constitution.

So is the criminal Snowden, or, the government?

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#19 Jun 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Weird....Beck loves him, as do Rand Paul and...Michael Moore. Boehner hates him, as does...Feinstein. This is all across party and ideological lines.
Myself, I generally support the guy's efforts, although his claims of 'criminality' don't appear to be accurate. There's NO real evidence that the Obama Administration broke Bush-era laws about spying, these went through a judge as was required.
But that doesn't make spying good....even when it's justified by anti-terrorist claims.
Not a simple issue...
It is not. And that is why the people need to go back to the constitution and show where their rights were violated and demand action against those that violated the rights.

Of course suggesting that alone will mean nothing in today's society. They only care about the NBA playoffs right now.
sinic

Kerrville, TX

#20 Jun 12, 2013
would the fix described in the article below work?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#21 Jun 12, 2013
Lamer wrote:
<quoted text>
You still think this is for "national security". That is all i hear since 9/11 is "its for National security". No, our national security will not be harmed if our gov doesnt spy on everyone of us; infact i would say our security as a country would increase.
All this "for national security" reminds me of "think of the kids". You think just stating that its for national security that is must be ok without any other debate.
Well i got news for you, i am not willing to give up all these freedoms just b/c some of you "think" its needed for national security without being able to elaborate on why such harsh measures are needed. Freedom has a cost, and i have zero problems paying it, even if it means costing american lives; including my own.
OTOH, lack of such security has been blamed for the rise of al-qai'da, their easy access to the U.S. and the events of 9/11, as well as other terrorist attacks. Many feel that security includes monitoring of communications for patterns indicative of terrorist activities. What if we cut back on all such surveillance and then another 9/11 occurred? Who would you blame then? How would the authorities justify cutting back on surveillance?

I don't like spying on Americans either, but there IS another side to it. Terrorism may be used to justify a lot of things, sometimes wrongly, but it IS real.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Susan Collins Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Abortion debate stalls human trafficking bill i... Mar '15 Who Bought It 1
News Senate Democrat's office: Aide knew of abortion... Mar '15 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News Immigration reform looks dead Mar '15 wild child 2
News Battle Brewing Craft beer producers seek tax br... Mar '15 Le Jimbo 4
News Republicans blame Cruz for year-end confirmations Dec '14 RayOne 6
News Dem rep under fire over video with lewd referen... (Sep '14) Sep '14 barefoot2626 28
News ISIS fight: Congress could vote as early as Wed... (Sep '14) Sep '14 Cat74 15
More from around the web