• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Edward Snowden - Whistleblower or Criminal?

When did he lie to Congress?

RayG

Well, it is not for me to decide whether he committed a felony, but I suggest questions need to be asked about this exchange:

On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper answered: “No, sir.” And Wyden reiterated the question, “It does not?” Clapper responded: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect — but not wittingly.”

The Verizon court order authorizes collection of data on Americans regarding their call details. What is that other than the 'witting' collection of 'any data at all' on millions of Americans?
 
Ronulans tend to be idealistic and gullible.

I'm willing to bet that all of this guy's past associations are being looked at really closely right now.

Of course they are looking at his associations, but I doubt that 'Ron Paul supporter' is going to be much of an effective smear.

ETA: I wonder if they're using PRISM? ;)
 
Last edited:
Whistleblowing: The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Whistleblowing

What the government is doing is not illegal.

Er, that seems almost tautological.

I don't think that's true. It would be tautological to say that the law is legal, but the government is not above the law.

I think it would surely depend on whether or not what the government is doing is constitutional, and I am not competent enough to judge that in this case. But if it is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, then presumably he has to blow the whistle to avoid being party to a crime (otherwise a few people at his level could end up being scapegoated).

If, on the other hand, he is somehow now breaking espionage laws then presumably he would be a criminal or even a... TERRORIST!!!!*`+`*@@l@.;@@::@@!!#$%%&&#"%&++!!!!!
 
Whistleblowing: The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Whistleblowing

What the government is doing is not illegal.

My opinion is that he is a whistleblower because he has acted in the public interest.

Whether he will be prosecuted and have a successful defense or not on whistle-blowing grounds remains to be seen.
 
Funny how he is hiding in China. If you want to talk about draconian monitoring and censorship, alk he hss to do is look out the window.

I imagine that the Chinese inteligence agencies will have him over for a "friendly" talk soon.

Isn't that a bit tu quoque? If you think WE'RE bad then what about China?

Maybe, but I don't think China should be used as a benchmark.
 
Ronulans tend to be idealistic and gullible.

I'm willing to bet that all of this guy's past associations are being looked at really closely right now.
Gullible? He blew the whistle on an extensive government spying program at significant risk to his own life. Isn't that the opposite of gullible?

It's weird how "Ronulan" is an insult here considering everything he predicted keeps coming true. ;)
 
Gullible? He blew the whistle on an extensive government spying program at significant risk to his own life. Isn't that the opposite of gullible?

It's weird how "Ronulan" is an insult here considering everything he predicted keeps coming true. ;)

He's President?
 
How many people here actually believe the government has enough people in it all together to read (even quickly scan) all the emails, twits, facebook massages, and all the other daily written stuff not to mention even minimally screen a fraction of all spoken communications - even passing them through a really fast computerized screening system to pick ones for further examination. I do not believe they have either so I suspect they do not have the ability to go through all of our communications - but I do think if they are not stupid they can go after a good number of the ones that might be worth it for security purposes.
 
He's kind of a geeky looking little twerp. Was that one of the choices?

I think he'll be popular in prison.
 

Attachments

  • twerp.jpg
    twerp.jpg
    30.8 KB · Views: 12
Whistleblowing: The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private enterprise, to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Whistleblowing

What the government is doing is not illegal.

If the government's actions are not illegal, then how can revealing them be illegal? Seems to me that the government would have to admit what it's up to in order to prosecute someone for ratting them out about it. And if they claim they're not up to anything, then how can this guy have spilled the beans about it? Unless they want to sue him for libel.
 
Definite whistleblower.

It is clear that Americans have no adequate understanding of their 4th amendment rights when it comes to digital communications and that the government has been acting in secret to collect information which many Americans believe violates their 4th amendment rights. It is high time that a debate was triggered which leads to a clear definition of these rights in terms of digital communication, so Americans can be happy that their rights are not being violated in secret by the NSA. As this release of documents triggers such a debate, Snowden's activities are certainly in the public interest.

I'm not sure that the Supreme Court would agree with your interpretation of the 4th Amendment. I believe that it ruled way back in 1979 that the collection of telephone records by the govt. does not violate the 4th Amendment.
 
If the government's actions are not illegal, then how can revealing them be illegal?

Is it a question of whether he revealed something illegal, or revealed something that was classified TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN?

If NSA has done something unethical but not illegal, he's probably in more trouble for the latter than the former.

RayG
 
I'm not sure that the Supreme Court would agree with your interpretation of the 4th Amendment. I believe that it ruled way back in 1979 that the collection of telephone records by the govt. does not violate the 4th Amendment.

I was referring also to the emails and other data that was collected by PRISM.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom