Yeah that little 4th amendment thing.... no laws broken there. Nope. Totally legel. Guys are blind to the wrong and refuse to see the obvious out of fear.

How about, local cops do this to you? You ok? Same thing different scale, different intruder, different reason. A good one? Maybe legal with particularized warrant. Not a chance without. Some gov't functionary who remains nameless says it's ok does not make it ok.

How do those feeling NSA has not violated 4th confirm the legality of their actions?

Any guilt on Snowden does not obviate or exculpate NSA.

I hope he gets a fair trial and first rate hanging.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IMHkkF21Mgw?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"Providing your fellow countrymen with information that the State is spying on them is not traitorous, that is unless your allegiance lies more to the State than to freedom itself."

Snowden is No Traitor, Here's Why, Let's Stop that Talk Now #PatrioticStockholmSyndrome | Punk Rock Libertarians

Like Ellsberg before him, Snowden has no chance of a fair trial in the US. In the court of World opinion Snowden will be remembered favourably.

No laws broken...pretty much correct, unless you don't believe in the power of our nation to enact laws and the Supreme Court to uphold them.

Of course if you feel your knowledge of the 4th Amendment exceeds that of the Supreme Court...I would like to see you make the case. So far, no one else has been able to do so successfully.

LOL...So will Obama...and in many places, Osama...LOL

A fair trial would ensure that he would be convicted of theft and espionage (open and shut). The only question would be Treason.

Whether or not you cheer this info coming out or are outraged...the simple truth of the matter is that people entrusted with classified (especially Top Secret) cannot determine on their own, what should be released. In most cases, they would not know enough to make that determination since we tend to break it up into small pieces based on need to know. A good example is Manning. I am sure that he didn't intend for people to die when he released what he did...but that certainly was the result.

The sheer arrogance of Snowden (not even a HS grad) to assume his judgment was so superior to make such a decision is beyond belief.

The answer lies with the definition of Top Secret. "Disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security". The information released was classified as information that needs additional protection above TS. Snowden would likely not know enough to understand the full repercussions of the release of the information.

If we are all to personally determine which national security secrets our conscience dictate we reveal...then you would similarly have no problem with a nuclear weapons guy posting vulnerabilities of our weapons if he didn't believe in MAD?

Who is he, or you or me to make that decision?

There are plenty of ways of whistle-blowing without releasing TS info to the public. Whether you agree or disagree with whatever the govt. is alleged to have done...certainly what this fellow has done is heinous. he didn't just release info regarding the level of NSA surveillance, but stole gigabytes, if not terabytes of the nations top secrets and released them to uncleared foreigners.

There are plenty of ways to be a whistleblower without coloring outside the lines. Did it myself. It was painful, but the right thing to do.

The Ft Hood shooter was reportedly acting on his conscience as well...

I started this thread, then got busy and didn't participate. Sorry. Quickly, my view:
- "Acting his conscience" is no defense. Most spies and most terrorists could use the same defense. Your average ISIS killer is probably sincere in his beliefs.
- "In the end, he did good", if true, is for the twin judges of conscience and history. Not for the judge in the criminal courtroom. We are a nation of laws, and the laws don't say that the ends justify the means.
- When he disclosed terabytes of classified data and took the rest to Moscow, he knew he was committing a crime and that he'd never see the US again outside of a prison cell. He made that decision with his eyes wide open.
- If he returns, I would like to see him tried. If found guilty, I'd like to see him serve his sentence. If it is a capital sentence, I'd like to see it carried out.
- Just like Pvt Manning.

So the NSA is already a private contractor.

Who else has access to this data?
Haliburton? Blackwater/Xe/Academi?
Hillery's cousin in the IT department?
Jethro the county sheriff with an inkling for nude selfies of yer nice booty blond cousin?

"He released them to uncleared foreigners."
Such as raw data obtained from warrant-less searches to Israel?

Snowden released (too much and criminally imo) information to the general public.
There are a thousand Snowdens trading information on the black market.
Alan Grayson Accuses Former NSA Chief Of Disclosing Classified Information 'For Profit'

I'd like to see him return to the US and stand trial. But, only if the trial is broadcast on TV or the Internet unedited. It would be a be an interesting time to gauge the public sentiment on privacy and security. http://ehealthwoman.com/apple/images/38.gifhttp://ehealthwoman.com/apple/images/49.gif

If you believe there are no political decisions made within the SCt you are foolish. (well we know that already). Most of NSAs eavesdropping would not pass muster for the best of prosecutors and the most liberal of warrant signing judges.
.... well Your Honor, see this guy sammy, he lives near some muslims, and well, they drive past each other twice a week, so, I think he may be a security check so I want to gather all is emails, and see who he talks with on his cell, and hell, lets check his spending habits too for good measure... Nope. That does not sustain a warrant no matter how liberally you want to construe justification.

The NSA back doors are a double-edge sword.

Now that American computers are made overseas:
‪Obama criticises China's mandatory backdoor tech import rules • The Register
"In an interview with Reuters, Obama said Beijing's far-reaching counter-terrorism law would require technology firms to hand over encryption keys as well as installing "backdoors" into systems, thus granting Chinese authorities access in the process."

Let's compare him to Obama.

Now, what?

LOL. That is some argument you have there.

So? That is not what the law requires.

Huh? And you call me foolish? You do realize that is not what NSA does...don't you?

Amen!
 

Amen!

exactly

He clearly violated his terms of security clearance. As a result of his actions, corporate and government regulations have become a real PITA. Beyond personal grief, he set back some important programs that have in fact improved international security. The ignorance of terrorists and thieves is a good thing for the good guys. Unfortunately, these groups have a lot of youngsters who are real digital wizzes and use the digital highway for propagation of terror. Their influence has been far more effective than any electronic eavesdropping deterrence the good guys have been able to accomplish. There is way more information out there for the picking by the bad guys than any of us want. I'm sorry his life is permanently messed up, but even more disappointed by some of the loss of international security. Yes, it is real. Lives will be lost and billions more spent to fend it off. Personally, there is even false information about me that can be traced back to U.S. government offices.

He deserves a Fair and Public trial, as do those who allegedly committed the unconstitutional acts he is purported to have revealed.

Fint, to me he represents the government that was trusted to protect that information. His actions are the failure of the government, and exemplify why the government cannot and should not be trusted to protect the security of the information it collects.

This is the part that gets short shrift. If the Constitution means anything, at all, then there needs to be a criminal accounting for the violation of the principles therein.

I see it as a failure of the electorate. An electorate so sure that the private sector does everything better than military and government employees that they elect representatives who privatize inherently government functions that military/federal employees did well for decades.

His actions show that citizens should get their heads out of their ass and realize that both the Executive and Legislative Branches vilifying and scapegoating federal employees and the military is just a ploy to triple the cost of government by passing the work on to the private sector folks who contribute to their campaigns and employ them after they leave office.

+1

Widespread outsourcing government work to private contractors is a way to enrich congressmen, ceos, and retired generals. It doesn't save money or do a better job. Being anti-government is practically a religion among many politicians and voters today. This ideology is supported by many very rich business donors, and I wonder why.

Wasn't Snowden a private contractor?

Oh Yeah... Five Things We've Already Forgotten About Snowden's NSA Leaks | Motherboard

Seriously: Would the world accept this originating from any different country such as China or Russia?

This eats away at Pax Americana.
One revelation at a time.

NSA Global Spy Stations Revealed: 'Sniff It All, Collect It All, Know It All, Process It All, Exploit It All' | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1425872619.jpg

Yes. That was the point.

What makes you think Russia and China are spying on everyone? Where do you think they get most of their military technology?

That is mostly inaccurate...as are the other conspiracy type articles linked here. Contractors are not used to avoid scrutiny, but rather, their salaries are severely limited by the Executive and Legislative Branches while their agenda and tasks grow exponentially. Using contractors for what used to be considered inherently governmental tasks creates many problems (and results in much higher costs and greater inefficiencies).

Israel?

That is much the same message Mr. Snowden is sending. Who knew you and he thought so much alike?

I don't think that is the case at all. In fact, it could not be further from the truth.

You and he disagree about the effectiveness/appropriateness of the whistleblowing procedure. He seems to believe that the individuals working in/for the government have a more personal responsibility for any inappropriate activities, and he seems (I'm making some assumptions about the thinking of someone I do not know at all) to believe that just because an argument can be made about the technical legality of an activity, it does not justify the appropriateness of the activity.

That said, Mr. Snowden does seem to be saying that the problems stem from an unaware/apathetic electorate that will not hold itself accountable for electing leaders that will act in society's best interests. His intentions seem to me to be that US society be made aware of what we are doing to ourselves.

This is where you are placing the blame as well, and the more basic underlying problem as well, is it not? You may disagree strongly with the appropriateness of his methods, but you guys are looking at the same problem - the damage those we elect are doing - and seeing the same answer - society needs to be more responsible.

My sole point was that the main problem here is with Mr. Snowden who put his own ego above the law and the good of his nation...something that he swore not to do. The only reason that Mr. Snowden was in the position to do what he did was due to the fact that the military and federal government are required to hire contractors to do work that military and Feds should be doing. There seems to be a hugely mistaken belief (among voters, pundits and lawmakers) that the private sector does things like this better and less expensively, but that just is not the case. The requirement to contract services out (and usually to the lowest bidder) result in the employment of losers like Snowden and the waste of billions of dollars repairing the destruction they cause.

The "employment of losers like Snowden", is done by the government. The same entity that justifies the collection of the information also dictates who does the collecting and analysis, and is responsible for failures in the security of the process.

No. The federal agency hires a contractor to do their IT (not by choice, but because elected officials demand it). The contractor hires "losers like Snowden".

I have many folks from the same contractor (and others) that work with me. None are as qualified or skilled as their Federal or military counterparts and yet they cost much more. It is the only way Feds are allowed to get the manpower required to do the tasks they are directed to do by law and executive direction.

Snowden didn't do collection and analysis. He was a low level IT guy.

When you run a pro baseball team in a tough league, but the voters, through Congress, require you use little leaguers in key positions...disaster cannot help but happen.

So, the government hired him as an IT guy. The government is still responsible for his employment, and his access to the information, and the security of that information.

Whatever his sources might have been (e.g. information gleaned from the noteworthy efforts of highly professional, patriotic, hard-working, loyal government employees, versus other lowly contract employees like himself) it certainly appears as though Snowden did some collection and analysis, doesn't it?

No. The government did not hire him. He worked for a private firm who hired him. They bid on a contract and won.

LOL...like Manning, he downloaded the hard drives . I guess you could call espionage "collection" much as we do ISR.