Edward Snowden Is A Hero, Not A Traitor

Thank you BadCabbie, for speaking the simple truth.

Yes, Snowden is a patriot of the highest order. It is every citizen's duty to expose the crimes of government. Bravo!

originally posted by: Neith
a reply to: uncommitted

You're one of those people that uses the term 'lies' to trigger people.

Ain't happening!

So you don't consider terms like secret gestapo to be a trigger? Interesting.

a reply to: uncommitted

Not really no, because i know what you're doing.

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap!

Not cool.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Snowden released information about our government.

Same as the leaks during the election.
The information exposed corruption, lies.

The same government says that lives have been lost because of the information released.


I say that more transparency will always be better than less, if we are to call ourselves a free society.

a reply to: Neith

Nit picking?

Detail is important. Furthermore, uncommitted is absolutely right to point out that Trump's attitude toward Snowden and Manning both, has been nothing short of draconian, despite the fact that both these people bought to light matters which were both firmly in the national interest to know, and highlighted wrongdoing on the part of high ups in government, in the intelligence services, and in the command and operations level of the military.

These pieces of information are of a sort which governments, intelligence agencies, and the military do NOT have a legitimate reason to hide. The mass surveillance system the US and its allies have set up was only secret because it violates the laws of the countries which operate it, particularly violating the Constitution of the United States. Regardless of witless argument otherwise, intelligence agencies do NOT have carte blanche to do whatever they see fit. They MUST be under the control of the government, must be accountable to the people they serve, and ONLY to those people. Not a shadow government, not financial blocks, not the MIC. The information Snowden released made us aware that government and the intelligence community of the west, were engaged in criminal abuses of the rights of citizens that they were claiming to protect the rights of. That is a legitimate release.

The information bought to light by Chelsea Manning showed the west that the people operating on its behalf in war, were not being nearly as careful, not nearly as precise, surgical, or even remotely concerned with the lives of the civilians in Iraq, as we were lead to believe at the time, showed up lies and nonsense besides, and illuminated the darkest recesses of how these sorts of incidents get hushed up. Again, things people had every right to know, regardless of the consequences, because without this information, there is no ability for a person to force their government to account for their actions.

As citizens of what are often misidentified as "free" countries, where freedom, liberty and democracy are allegedly watchwords, things we try to peddle to other nations at the point of a gun no less, we have an obligation to our societies, to make choices during elections which will ensure that the behaviour of our governments toward other nations, are precisely representative of the feelings, morality and ethics of the people. We are also under an obligation to strike down any system which prevents, damages or destroys our ability as citizens to actually maintain awareness of the activities of our government, whether those be actions on foreign soil, or actions on our home soil. This applies no matter which side of the ocean you live on.

No government other than a dictatorship, has the permission of its people to do things with which the people disagree. No government has the permission of its people to hide things because they might cause inconvenience to the MIC or the government. Snowden and Manning refused to allow the people to be blindfolded without their consent, and as such are true heroes. They defended the principles laid down in the constitution far more thoroughly by their actions, than ANY President in recent history has. In doing what they did, they chose the peoples right to be informed, over their own comfort, their own liberty, their freedom. Manning is, I believe, still in jail (due out in May), Snowden may never be able to return to the country and the people, that he loved well enough to put himself in harms way for.

No one who has done less than he has, to advance freedom of information, to stand up for the rights of citizens to have their data left alone, to force the perfidy of governments out into the open, has ANY business questioning his actions or his loyalty to the principles upon which his nation was founded.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Im so high i dont think i can read that however i am grateful for your input!

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Power corrupts.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's astonishing to me how people seem to keep conveniently forgetting this.

Lord Acton nailed it. Ignore at your own risk...

a reply to: uncommitted

a reply to: gladtobehere

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Neith

What do you mean before the 20th January? Trump blasted Obama for showing leniency to Manning and has already called Snowden a traitor and the he 'deserves to be executed'.

Can you stop pretending otherwise? It's full of crap around here with the rest of the Trump fan boys as it is.

www.independent.co.uk...

To be fair to the president, he hasn't said that since 2015, most recently, so his perspective may have changed since then. I know the media likes to drag that statement back out every chance they get, but he hasn't said that since more than a year ago, as far as I can tell:

twitter.com...
twitter.com...
I think these three statements are the money shot comments that usually get trotted out whenever they run a story about how 'Trump's gonna git Snowden!'

I could be wrong, perhaps he's said it more recently, but I don't think so. Maybe someone can pop over to Twitter, ask the Donald how he feels about Snowden now. Maybe he'll comment. On the other hand, I wonder if some of the military boys he's surrounded himself with might have had a little talk with Donald J, explained the way things are, perhaps broadened his perspective a little bit. I dunno. Writing this thread has gotten me wondering about that.

Just to be clear, I'm pretty neutral in my opinions of Trump so far. I am neither a supporter nor a hater. I am content to keep an open mind. I am hopeful, but skeptical and suspicious as well.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Well, seeing as when Obama gave clemency to Chelsea Manning and Manning slammed into Obama Trump went on the offensive calling Manning an 'ungrateful traitor who should never have been released from prison' in January of this year, you might want to rethink that thought a little. Not sure why you think Trump would consider Manning a traitor and Snowden not?

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Well, seeing as when Obama gave clemency to Chelsea Manning and Manning slammed into Obama Trump went on the offensive calling Manning an 'ungrateful traitor who should never have been released from prison' in January of this year, you might want to rethink that thought a little. Not sure why you think Trump would consider Manning a traitor and Snowden not?

www.cbsnews.com...

Manning and Snowden are two different people who, though they have done similar things, have done them for different reasons using different methods.

As to Trump's present thoughts on the issue, I just thought it important to point out that he hasn't said that he thinks Snowden a traitor in more than a year as far as I can tell. I'm not saying his perspective has changed, but it might have.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Well, seeing as when Obama gave clemency to Chelsea Manning and Manning slammed into Obama Trump went on the offensive calling Manning an 'ungrateful traitor who should never have been released from prison' in January of this year, you might want to rethink that thought a little. Not sure why you think Trump would consider Manning a traitor and Snowden not?

www.cbsnews.com...

Manning and Snowden are two different people who, though they have done similar things, have done them for different reasons using different methods.

As to Trump's present thoughts on the issue, I just thought it important to point out that he hasn't said that he thinks Snowden a traitor in more than a year as far as I can tell. I'm not saying his perspective has changed, but it might have.

Current thinking appears to be that Putin will give Snowden to Trump as a 'gift'.

You may separate Manning and Snowden because you think they had different reasons (I have my own opinion on Snowden that doesn't match yours, and I think Manning is essentially a damaged and vulnerable individual) the outcome is essentially exactly the same - not sure why you think others wouldn't agree with that.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Im going to have to respectfully disagree. He was a hero until he released signals information on hostile nations (no need to release capabilities against china, venezuela, etc). Once he crossed that line he went from whistleblower to traitor. IMO i hope he rots in russia.

a reply to: Vector99

So, you think say, the Philippines or Uganda has the same spy tech we do? Hmmmmm... But I thought America was "number one," it is just not necessarily in the things people think, in all things?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Neith

Nit picking?

Detail is important. Furthermore, uncommitted is absolutely right to point out that Trump's attitude toward Snowden and Manning both, has been nothing short of draconian, despite the fact that both these people bought to light matters which were both firmly in the national interest to know, and highlighted wrongdoing on the part of high ups in government, in the intelligence services, and in the command and operations level of the military.

These pieces of information are of a sort which governments, intelligence agencies, and the military do NOT have a legitimate reason to hide. The mass surveillance system the US and its allies have set up was only secret because it violates the laws of the countries which operate it, particularly violating the Constitution of the United States. Regardless of witless argument otherwise, intelligence agencies do NOT have carte blanche to do whatever they see fit. They MUST be under the control of the government, must be accountable to the people they serve, and ONLY to those people. Not a shadow government, not financial blocks, not the MIC. The information Snowden released made us aware that government and the intelligence community of the west, were engaged in criminal abuses of the rights of citizens that they were claiming to protect the rights of. That is a legitimate release.

The information bought to light by Chelsea Manning showed the west that the people operating on its behalf in war, were not being nearly as careful, not nearly as precise, surgical, or even remotely concerned with the lives of the civilians in Iraq, as we were lead to believe at the time, showed up lies and nonsense besides, and illuminated the darkest recesses of how these sorts of incidents get hushed up. Again, things people had every right to know, regardless of the consequences, because without this information, there is no ability for a person to force their government to account for their actions.

As citizens of what are often misidentified as "free" countries, where freedom, liberty and democracy are allegedly watchwords, things we try to peddle to other nations at the point of a gun no less, we have an obligation to our societies, to make choices during elections which will ensure that the behaviour of our governments toward other nations, are precisely representative of the feelings, morality and ethics of the people. We are also under an obligation to strike down any system which prevents, damages or destroys our ability as citizens to actually maintain awareness of the activities of our government, whether those be actions on foreign soil, or actions on our home soil. This applies no matter which side of the ocean you live on.

No government other than a dictatorship, has the permission of its people to do things with which the people disagree. No government has the permission of its people to hide things because they might cause inconvenience to the MIC or the government. Snowden and Manning refused to allow the people to be blindfolded without their consent, and as such are true heroes. They defended the principles laid down in the constitution far more thoroughly by their actions, than ANY President in recent history has. In doing what they did, they chose the peoples right to be informed, over their own comfort, their own liberty, their freedom. Manning is, I believe, still in jail (due out in May), Snowden may never be able to return to the country and the people, that he loved well enough to put himself in harms way for.

No one who has done less than he has, to advance freedom of information, to stand up for the rights of citizens to have their data left alone, to force the perfidy of governments out into the open, has ANY business questioning his actions or his loyalty to the principles upon which his nation was founded.

One of the most EPIC posts I have ever read here! You should really send this to some people and try and get it published blogs/newspaper somewhere, I think this is how most people on the street feel worldwide about it all.

What these guys have done, at great risk to themselves, is to be the public oversight committee for tptb!

They have shown us the corruption,wrongdoing and areas that need more oversight!

Being imprisoned for exposing corruption and wrongdoing, or worse being setup, is the most un-intelligent thing I've ever seen as a response.

I have much more respect for Jeremy Hammond and Chelsea Manning

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

He did say such things awhile back, I'm not sure that he's repeated it recently though. I wonder if some of the military boys he's surrounded himself with might have had a little talk with Donald J, explained the way things are, perhaps broadened his perspective a little bit. I dunno.
Edit to add this video posted by Reason TV:

I hope that's the case and that is a good theory and I too have noticed he's gone quiet about it.

I mention it often here that Trump met with Henry Kissinger. That guy is Hardcore NWO/American empire.

I've also theorised that Donald was warned to tow the line. I can see it in his eyes.

Nicely put together thread.

Edward Snowden: "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

wiki

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

he claims he loves wikileaks and then calls Snowden a traitor. Quite the contradiction.

Funny thing I only learned recently. A wikileaks editor Sarah Harrison helped get him out. There are lots of heros..

:-)

Since spiriting NSA leaker Edward Snowden to safety in Russia two years ago, activist and WikiLeaks editor Sarah Harrison has lived quietly in Berlin. Sara Corbett meets the woman some regard as a political heroine—others as an accomplice to treason.

a reply to: gladtobehere

a reply to: slider1982

a reply to: Neith

Thanks for chiming in guys. Here's some more on illegal orders.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, “The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, ‘Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.’ This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials.” (Bill Moyers, “The Secret Government”, Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, “The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis”)

Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only “following orders” as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. “In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy” of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)

www.counterpunch.org...

The UCMJ on illegal orders

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is more concerned about failure of military personnel to obey legitimate orders than it is about refusal to obey illegitimate orders, but it does address the subject. In Section 16c(1)(c) it provides:

Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

And in Section 14c(2)(a)(i):

Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

These provisions allow for the disobedience of illegal orders, but such orders may themselves constitute a crime, or be part of a criminal conspiracy, either under military or civilian law. Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution, and under 18 USC 241 it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This could be applied to military personnel who abuse the rights of citizens, either military or civilian. The UCMJ also defines an Article 134 offense: Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official. This could apply to a military officer who impersonates a civilian official in an action against civilians. This includes actions taken under martial law. In RCM 202(a):

The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 2(a)(11) in peacetime has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Article 2(a)(10) has also been limited.

In RCM 302(b) Who may apprehend. The following officials may apprehend any person subject to trial by court-martial:

(1) Military law enforcement officials.

(2) Commissioned, warrant, petty, and noncommissioned officers.

However, anyone, including the lower enlisted grades, may apprehend for violation of civilian laws, provided it is done as an independent act of a citizen and not under orders.

Also be aware of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids members of the Army and Air Force to be used for domestic law enforcement.

The key point is this: You not only have the right to disobey an illegal order, but you may also have the duty to apprehend the parties issuing such an order if such issuance is part of the commission of a crime.

www.constitution.org...

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Neith
a reply to: Vector99

Vector i see it like this. Somebody had to tell everyone how the dirty Government insiders were screwing us. It's about time imo because people have been blind so long, they just agree and go along with whatever they're told. Denying ignorance isn't one of their forte's.

I don't disagree at all.

I think Snowden went wrong when he included other countries in his leaks. He was a government contracted employee with access to top secret info.

Wikileaks isn't a government contracted employee, they go with what they are given. Snowden should have just turned his info over to wikileaks anonymously and avoided his whole predicament.

Wikileaks is an anonymous source and can be full of truths as well as government disinfo
It needed to come straight from a whistle blowers mouth to be credible