Edward Snowden: American Hero

#828
#828
n_huffhines said:
So far, Snowden looks like a hero. If China brings war to us because of something Snowden did, I will change my tune. I feel pretty certain that nothing big will really come from the information shared.
Click to expand...

Hardly.

If there's no war that means no damage done?
 
#829
#829
BearCat204 said:
He has done enough for his character that there is no need for an assassination of it from the Government. He was charged with sensitive information that he leaked and is guilty of such. I am still not sure why you are defending this, but you seem to be ok with individuals taking it upon themselves to publically release sensitive information that they are charged with protecting as they seem fit. The fact that he did or did not sell information to another country is irrelevant to me and would only worsen what he is guilty of. He is in no way a "hero"
Click to expand...

He is 100% a hero. He risked his life so that the American people would know that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on us.

What's sad is that you're convinced that the government has the right to keep any information sealed for whatever reason they see fit. And if someone releases that information (even if they release information showing you how hard the government is ****ing you), you actually go as far blaming the whistle blower and not the government.

Wtf?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#832
#832
Velo Vol said:
Hardly.

If there's no war that means no damage done?
Click to expand...

No, but...

If something doesn't harm our war fighting capabilities it, by definition, should not be classified. "Hey we're doing some illegal ****" is not a valid reason to classify information.
 
#834
#834
n_huffhines said:
I will admit it's illegal but I don't give a **** about legality
Click to expand...

I question if it's illegal. The information itself doesn't meet the criteria to be classified. The actions taken by the government were illegal, and were only classified to prevent the people from finding out.

I think a good attorney could make a great case here.
 
#835
#835
Vol8188 said:
He is 100% a hero. He risked his life so that the American people would know that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on us.

What's sad is that you're convinced that the government has the right to keep any information sealed for whatever reason they see fit. And if someone releases that information (even if they release information showing you how hard the government is ****ing you), you actually go as far blaming the whistle blower and not the government.

Wtf?
Click to expand...

You should probably reread what I have posted.........I dont condem whistleblowers in the least, as long as they go through proper channels (and there are proper channels). What NSA was doing was wrong and I have never said any different, but that doesnt put Snowden in the right.....at all.

Vol8188 said:
I question if it's illegal. The information itself doesn't meet the criteria to be classified. The actions taken by the government were illegal, and were only classified to prevent the people from finding out.

I think a good attorney could make a great case here.
Click to expand...


Good luck with that, I am pretty sure that by signing a NDA, you are pretty much agreeing that you will not release any information. Also, who deems whether or not the information meets the criteria to be classified? Is that up to Snowden? Is that up to anyone with a clearance who is charged with the safe keep of the information? Pretty sure if its stamped Classified, FOUO, SECRET, TSS, then there isnt any room for an individual who is charged with keeping it as if its classified or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#837
#837
BearCat204 said:
You should probably reread what I have posted.........I dont condem whistleblowers in the least, as long as they go through proper channels (and there are proper channels). What NSA was doing was wrong and I have never said any different, but that doesnt put Snowden in the right.....at all.




Good luck with that, I am pretty sure that by signing a NDA, you are pretty much agreeing that you will not release any information. Also, who deems whether or not the information meets the criteria to be classified? Is that up to Snowden? Is that up to anyone with a clearance who is charged with the safe keep of the information? Pretty sure if its stamped Classified, FOUO, SECRET, TSS, then there isnt any room for an individual who is charged with keeping it as if its classified or not.
Click to expand...

Going through the proper channels is how you end up dead.

As to your belief that a NDA is some unbreakable agreement, those are also used by many private companies. If a company were doing something illegal and were reported for it, would the NDA not be considered void (like any other contract involving illegal activities)?

Why is this different?

And you never addressed my claim that this information did not meet the definition for classified material because it will cause no harm to our war fighting capabilities.
 
#840
#840
Vol8188 said:
Going through the proper channels is how you end up dead.

As to your belief that a NDA is some unbreakable agreement, those are also used by many private companies. If a company were doing something illegal and were reported for it, would the NDA not be considered void (like any other contract involving illegal activities)?

Why is this different?

And you never addressed my claim that this information did not meet the definition for classified material because it will cause no harm to our war fighting capabilities.
Click to expand...
NDA's with a private company are a totally different animal than an agreement with the USG.

Also, I believe I did address your claim of meeting the definition for classified material. I will clarify a little though, material that is classified doesnt have to mean release of would cause harm to our war fighting capabilities, all it has to be deemed to potentially harming is national security and that umbrella is rather large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#841
#841
88, you making me go through contracts law classes in my head lol. There's something with sovereignty that keeps popping up IBM my head lol. May have to look at some old notes
 
#842
#842
wait you are pissed off that our country took our information. but you aren't pissed that another nation now has that information? yes it only happened because of our government, but it doesn't excuse the second nation or the guy selling it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#843
#843
Vol8188 said:
Dead men tell no tales. So I have none.

But how do you think it would have went? Do you really believe the information would have been released?
Click to expand...

Why should it have been released? He took lots of information beyond the NSA surveillance system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#844
#844
BearCat204 said:
NDA's with a private company are a totally different animal than an agreement with the USG.

Also, I believe I did address your claim of meeting the definition for classified material. I will clarify a little though, material that is classified doesnt have to mean release of would cause harm to our war fighting capabilities, all it has to be deemed to potentially harming is national security and that umbrella is rather large.
Click to expand...

How are they completely different?

Look up the definitions of each classification. They are all related to our war fighting capabilities (it directly states that) But how did this harm national security?
 
#845
#845
Velo Vol said:
Why should it have been released? He took lots of information beyond the NSA surveillance system.
Click to expand...

You were told he did anyway.

But do you not believe than the American people should have been told about an illegal spying program aimed at American citizens? It 100% should have been released.
 
#846
#846
LouderVol said:
wait you are pissed off that our country took our information. but you aren't pissed that another nation now has that information? yes it only happened because of our government, but it doesn't excuse the second nation or the guy selling it.
Click to expand...

Fruits of the poisonous tree.
 
#848
#848
Vol8188 said:
How are they completely different?

Look up the definitions of each classification. They are all related to our war fighting capabilities (it directly states that) But how did this harm national security?
Click to expand...

No, they do not. Where are you finding these definitions?

See EO 13526


I dont know if it has harmed national security yet, but I know the documents that were classified weren't outside the scope of being deemed classified. What entity rules on whether or not a document is deemed sensitive or higher??? I'll give you one guess.

A NDA with a private company carries financial penalty and breaking an NDA with the UGA can carry criminal charges. I will have to find it, but a NDA with a private company is different from one with the USG and follows different rules and penalties. Consider me owing you the link and explanation and I will try to find it.
 
#849
#849
BearCat204 said:
No, they do not. Where are you finding these definitions?

See EO 13526


I dont know if it has harmed national security yet, but I know the documents that were classified weren't outside the scope of being deemed classified. What entity rules on whether or not a document is deemed sensitive or higher??? I'll give you one guess.

A NDA with a private company carries financial penalty and breaking an NDA with the UGA can carry criminal charges. I will have to find it, but a NDA with a private company is different from one with the USG and follows different rules and penalties. Consider me owing you the link and explanation and I will try to find it.
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find the AFI I'm taking my definition from later.

And I'm not talking about all of the documents he's "accused" if releasing. Only the ones relating to the government survalience program. Do you believe they meet the definition and why?

I also believe the idea of an illegal contract being an invalid contract (such as the NDA in this case) should still carry over to federal cases.
 
#850
#850
Vol8188 said:
I'll see if I can find the AFI I'm taking my definition from later.

And I'm not talking about all of the documents he's "accused" if releasing. Only the ones relating to the government survalience program. Do you believe they meet the definition and why? Section 1.4 of EO 13526 seems to say they do

I also believe the idea of an illegal contract being an invalid contract (such as the NDA in this case) should still carry over to federal cases.
Click to expand...


See bolded


Also an illegal contract is not the same as seeing something illegal while being under a NDA. Noticing something illegal while being under a NDA does not make the NDA illegal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top