Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I saw a 60 minutes episode 10yrs ago where they were talking about the NSA's Cell phone monitoring capabilities and how certain phrases and catch words would set the recorders rolling,its been common knowledge that these organizations have been spying for some time whether its wire taps,cell phone records or online activities,if you didnt think they were also spying on Americans you are rather naive, now you know they are listening you cant seriously be calling for the ending of the NSA, CIA and FBI merely because they might be listening to your cell phone..
I remember that. It rattled a few nerves, but was only a report on a tv show so people went on with things. I think that Snowden still has only released two percent of what he has had rattled nerves in high places. And sort of knowing that they probably are spying, and knowing the details of how they are reconstrucing people's lives who have never been accused or suspected of anything just because they can finallly hit a nerve that won't go away.
I think that a few people had the blinders pulled off and more had confirmation of what they suspected, if not the details. Fewer will swallow the old line that its all to make us safer.
It's not about him thinking his home country was being "repressive" but rather about all those rights and privileges outlined in that little thing you call the "Constitution" being systematically whittled away before your very eyes.
You do know that the countries likely to host him, are not your enemies don't you? That's just another small facet of what Snowden is trying to tell/show you.
Correct. That thinking is part of the problem. Not knowing much about the rest of the world, many Americans make the mistake to think that what the US thinks and wants is good and right, and who doesn't agree with them is wrong, bad and an enemy. They allow themselves to be brainwashed by the patriotism and military machinery and their resulting paranoia makes them need enemies because they are really bad neighbors who are incapable of living peacefully with others who think differently, who have a different political or economic system, etc.
I personally feel that many of the liberals on this thread who feel that Snowden is a "traitor" are those who have a problem compartmentalizing their incessant admiration for and defense of Barack Obama and their erosion of their 4th Amendment rights. They seem to believe, whether consciously or unconsciously, that the leaks happening under the Obama Administration's watch are tantamount to being a direct assault on the Presidency, and therefore cannot rationalize anything other than an automatic defense of the President through proclamations of treason by Edward Snowden.
I would have preferred Snowden to talk to someone in the administration instead of going to the media. At the time Snowden revealed the NSA/USA spying, lots of media outlets had a lot of inconsistent reports and we already know how weak the media is when it came to revealing facts.
I think it is real important to know what has been going on behind the NSA and so forth but he did break an oath and must face the music.
I would have preferred Snowden to talk to someone in the administration instead of going to the media. At the time Snowden revealed the NSA/USA spying, lots of media outlets had a lot of inconsistent reports and we already know how weak the media is when it came to revealing facts.
I think it is real important to know what has been going on behind the NSA and so forth but he did break an oath and must face the music.
I have to disagree. I don't think its reasonable to expect any of this would have seen the light of day had it stayed purely internal. The NSA had to be exposed to the public, in the public, through true journalistic integrity if the goal of shedding sunlight was to be achieved.
He knew a small contractor like him couldn't change anything from within. It is a giant machine, they won't allow a nobody to become a threat to their business and agenda...
I would have preferred Snowden to talk to someone in the administration instead of going to the media.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread that was tried before. The government buried the complaints and then lied before Congress when asked.
At the time Snowden revealed the NSA/USA spying, lots of media outlets had a lot of inconsistent reports and we already know how weak the media is when it came to revealing facts.
I think it is real important to know what has been going on behind the NSA and so forth but he did break an oath and must face the music.
Why is it that Alexander and Clapper aren't being made to "face the music"? How can we expect those who exposed the lies to face the music by those who lied and refuse to?
I have to disagree. I don't think its reasonable to expect any of this would have seen the light of day had it stayed purely internal. The NSA had to be exposed to the public, in the public, through true journalistic integrity if the goal of shedding sunlight was to be achieved.
You're right, but he should have at least interacted with someone of high authority. I can see why he did what he has done, but that doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread that was tried before. The government buried the complaints and then lied before Congress when asked.
Why is it that Alexander and Clapper aren't being made to "face the music"? How can we expect those who exposed the lies to face the music by those who lied and refuse to?
Clapper is an idiot. He is an idiot that is forced to walk a very careful line of protecting national security interests (need to know) and telling Congress what it wants to know. His response about giving the "least untruthful" answer is indicative of him trying to maintain this balance and fumbling the PR issue on that point.
Clapper is an idiot. He is an idiot that is forced to walk a very careful line of protecting national security interests (need to know) and telling Congress what it wants to know. His response about giving the "least untruthful" answer is indicative of him trying to maintain this balance and fumbling the PR issue on that point.
No, it was not a fumbling of PR, it was an outright lie before Congress. He could have noted that the information was something he was not allowed to divulge. He didn't have to lie, and it was a lie.
You can't expect someone to face consequences to something that refuses to hold themselves up to the same standards.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
