posted on Aug, 15 2013 @ 02:11 PM
reply to post by DivisiveConformity
So you agree with your friend that what Snowden did was wrong?
Quote me where I said that, if you would.
To answer your question, I don't agree with him outright. I acknowledged that he is in a better position for deciding what Snowden's actions have
cost the government, and whether it was a worthwhile cost. I also acknowledged that I'm not very "in the know" when it comes to what Snowden
revealed, whether it was necessary to reveal it, whether we had anything to worry about, whether it was legal or not, and all of the details in
As such, I was conceding his superiority as far as being a reliable informant goes, in comparison to myself. If nothing else, I was throwing it out
there as a "well, this guy is a pretty cool and compassionate character, and he disagrees with what Snowden did, so there's that to consider".
Please tell me how we are ever supposed to know about the secret policies and secret actions of this government without whistleblowers? Are we
supposed to trust that the government is going to expose their illegal actions themselves? Or are we supposed to trust that they won't do anything
I am not in the position to make an informed judgment. Your approach requires the assumption that we can rely upon the government to violate its own
edicts. I don't feel comfortable forming a concrete conclusion regarding that possibility.
That's too much of a stretch for me. I don't trust them.
Neither do I, but even distrust features a rainbow of shades. How far are you willing to dis