It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
phinubian
Being loyal and agreeing by signing your name to a binding contract between yourself and the U.S. any other government or individual, creates a dilemma when you willfully choose to no longer honor that pledged loyalty on your own good name, he had many other ways to have gone about exposing what he perceived as wrong, so now he must face the punishments which when you do sign certain agreements the penalties are clearly there for you to read.
You either agree or disagree and do not sign your name and assign your loyalty to anyone, if you do breach it, be prepared to be subjected to the penalties and do not look for sympathy.
Horus12
Read my post again please "Spy agencies are an arm of the government who are voted in by the people, for the people" they are not representing themselves, they work for us.
I did not say we have to know everything, I simply stated when they turn against the people who they work for then they should have no right to use the law to protect themselves.
"I am 100% sure you have no need to know anything my company does from an intellectual property standpoint just like I am sure I have 100% no need to know anything your place of employment does."
You are aware they have been caught up in corporate espionage also right? You also have no right to know what I do at home, on my phone or at my computer.edit on 19-12-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)
opethPA
Horus12
Read my post again please "Spy agencies are an arm of the government who are voted in by the people, for the people" they are not representing themselves, they work for us.
Except they are not voted in by the people..Specific management positions will be voted on by elements or subcommittees of the Govt but from the janitor to a senior level field analyst public voting has nothing to do with it.
I did not say we have to know everything, I simply stated when they turn against the people who they work for then they should have no right to use the law to protect themselves.
"I am 100% sure you have no need to know anything my company does from an intellectual property standpoint just like I am sure I have 100% no need to know anything your place of employment does."
You are aware they have been caught up in corporate espionage also right? You also have no right to know what I do at home, on my phone or at my computer.edit on 19-12-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)
My stance has always been about Snowden the man and the fact that he broke the law.
If your issue is with Agencies or companies that you feel invade your privacy then great lets talk about that.
I have been clear all along, Snowden willingly broke the laws he knowingly and willing agreed to.
framedragged
Everyone keeps going on and on about how 'reactionary' the government is being to Edward Snowden.
A: He committed treason; it's a defined word and his actions fit the definition. Instead of blowing the whistle on corruption and trying to actually do something about it he aired dirty laundry again and again for no other purpose to embarrass the united states.
B: Nothing he has provided has been revelatory, sorry to anyone who hasn't been paying attention for the last 30 years.
C: Any complaints about misuse of nsa systems by employees for personal reasons should be directed at this self centered culture we seem to be so good at cultivating and the nature of bureaucracy itself.
If anyone actually thinks that we shouldn't keep track of external enemies and anyone they have regular contact with stateside, well then I don't know what to tell you.
Panic2k11
I think that a majority of people agrees with him in at least one point, traitors should be killed, what diverges in who is the traitor...
Advantage
I would consider that Snowden was "allowed" to take data. We have a huge pissing match between the CIA and the NSA as it is..
opethPA
The problem is for those that have never had a clearance or worked in the defense/intelligence community, Snowden seems like nothing more than a hero.
To those that have done both of those things he has broken multiple rules, laws, regulations and the contract he agreed to when choosing that career in life.
I'm not here to argue if it's justified that he did those things because the Govt does them. That's not the point for me. When you get your clearance you know what you are signing up for.
That being said...if he can effect change that allows those agencies to keep us secure while reducing the big brother element then I think the following would be fair:
1. Found guilty of treason
2. Thrown out of the country forever.
3. Suspended/Minimal jail sentence that anyone would get if they violated the clearly defined terms of getting your clearance.
I know if I would have improperly transported specific info on the grounds of a secured installation when I had my clearance I would have faced jail time and or significant fines plus loss of job and that pales in comparison to the infosec breach he caused.
edit on 2013pAmerica/Chicago3110ppm by opethPA because: (no reason given)
Aazadan
Classification can't be used to cover up something illegal. If it's illegal, under our laws it's not eligible to be classified, at which point it becomes public information. Many do their jobs and keep that information hidden. Snowden didn't, he exposed what he had a legal and ethical obligation to expose.
opethPA
Not the way it works in the real world and not really even applicable. No amount of reality is going to change the minds of some here so Im not going to try anymore.
I want to see the end game with Snowden and I hope the punishment matches whatever that end game is..Something noble or a fraud.
Xcathdra
[ If he strays outside that box, like Manning and Assange
opethPA
I don't get this justification of Party A breaks the law so Party B can do it also..that's called anarchy and watch society fall apart.
opethPA
You guys can all save your posts...
My guess is that the people on this thread claiming how he handled/transported/stored the classified info, not that act of whistle blowing, was not a violation of various rules/regulations/laws have never had a security clearance because if they had then they would understand what I am talking about.
In a scenario like that their just isn't a point in continuing.
jtma508
reply to post by scrounger
All people who work for the government have an oath to 'defend and uphold The Constitution'. That trumps any other contract. Based on the recent ruling by a Federal Judge it would seem Mr. Snowden was doing just that.