R
ringil
Guest
CAF political logic:
If GOP in office Snowden is a traitor
If Obama in office Snowden is a hero.
If GOP in office Snowden is a traitor
If Obama in office Snowden is a hero.
- Status
S
Seamus_L
Guest
Not me Ringil. I wanted to see the impeachment of George W Bush, just like I want to see the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
if godzilla wandered ashore? whose fault would it be then?
thanks for the invalid hypothetical.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
hardly. the traitor’s guilt is established by his own words. his punishment, though, might possibly have been mitigated by his motives and whatever good he accomplished. fleeing the country and seeking refuge with the Chinese kinda wipes out any credit he gets for his treason.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Actually what he released was out there in general terms since 2008. Linkdemocraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2679663
BUSHCO: DRAFTING PLAN TO GIVE GOV’T ACCESS TO ANY EMAIL, WEB SEARCH
US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search
RAW STORY
Published: Monday January 14, 2008
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a “walk in the park,” according to an interview published in the New Yorker’s print edition today:
online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WashWi…
…
McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.
“Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search,” author Lawrence Wright pens.
And a much longer article from the New Yorker Magazine via WSJ online.
BUSHCO: DRAFTING PLAN TO GIVE GOV’T ACCESS TO ANY EMAIL, WEB SEARCH
US drafting plan to allow government access to any email or Web search
RAW STORY
Published: Monday January 14, 2008
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a “walk in the park,” according to an interview published in the New Yorker’s print edition today:
online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WashWi…
…
McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.
“Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the authority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search,” author Lawrence Wright pens.
And a much longer article from the New Yorker Magazine via WSJ online.
S
scipio337
Guest
There are a TON of places besides China. The Ecudorian embassy in London has granted Assange asylum, for goodness sakes! How much political “muscle” does Ecudor have?
And, If you didn’t notice, Xi J(name removed by moderator)ing is currenlty IN the US. This is a “no gain, much pain” proposition for China. They probably have much better information than Snowden has offered.
He’s either the dumbest contractor ever hired by the NSA, or somehow on the take with China.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Edward Snowdon has probably taken an oath to secrecy, and if not (he ought to have taken this oath.) In light of this oath, he should be consider a traitor.
S
Shin
Guest
Oaths to conceal criminal and immoral activities are null and void. A good oath always presumes it is excused if it would cause sin. This is a matter of epikeia and higher authority.
Just as an unjust law is no law.
Just as when a Catholic prays before God, it is always, ‘If God wills it.’ a good oath is taken, with the implicit or explicit condition ‘As long as it is the will of God.’
Oaths people who work for the government take are not absolute and isolated from the higher laws of the government, Constitution, and God.
This propaganda of attacking the messenger is a standard tactic derived from Communism and evil. The Left especially loves it due to this. They accuse first, what they actually do. It is not surprising how many involved watching politics to some degree still do not understand even the basics of propaganda, but this lack must be corrected by anyone who wishes to speak about it for any length of time.
To accuse the other of the evil you in fact are doing, so as to shield yourself. Thus the politicians who are traitors, accuse the hero of being the traitor, and the propaganda of the media uses this to shield, aid, and abet those they serve.
Selective enforcement is another great evil that is practiced today, as it was practiced in fact, during the time of Julian the Apostate to oppress Christianity. Julian the Apostate is a precursor figure of Antichrist. We learn how evil times work in government practices, by learning from history such as Julian’s.
He pretended to be a Christian, and was an apostate Christian who embraced paganism. Then he applied laws that pretended to show equal tolerance for pagans and Christians, but instead excluded Christians from the public sphere.
He would enforce laws strictly to oppress Christians, and loosely or not at all regarding pagans, instead benefiting them.
Those who fight government corruption – prosecuted, those who within have authority and are the true cause of evils, breathing sighs of relief as they have their substitute to demonize and punish and distract from their evils.
The government having the ability to know everything about its citizens phone calls, conversations, and private lives, is a great evil.
For instance President Obama simply asks for all this information, he is given it. He gives it to a number of his liberal activists groups, his government cronies, and they use this for financial advantage, to gain donations, to target whom to oppress, to selectively enforce the laws.
Selective enforcement is one of the special tools of evil. It is used in government and it has been especially used against good Catholics in the past few decades, under the guise of law and discipline and fairness.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
then the traitor also lied to the government by pretending to take his required secrecy oaths, aggravating his prior felonies.
K
KendraDZ1902
Guest
Annnnnndddd that’s why I think he is a traitor.
S
Shin
Guest
Incorrect, the oath would to be just, presume the exceptions under which the man could speak, such as the current one. And even if when he took the oath he did not know these exceptions, they would be implicitly contained within it due to the higher authority of the Consitution and government itself.
And God. Always God.
If the oath excluded God, and the higher laws of the government, then it would be null and void for all who took it, and unjust in and of itself. But we would not presume such, on the contrary it is considered taken in the correct way.
All the ad hominem attacks on this person are a distraction from the issue he has brought forth, an issue of vast importance. That so many people care about this individual person’s life to such an extent I do not accept – they care about the issue, and the politicians their own culpability, but instead of speaking to it, because it is not defensible, are using this person, attacking him, as a tool to distract from it.
That too is immoral, to use a person in this fashion. Who would wish to be used this way?
And God. Always God.
If the oath excluded God, and the higher laws of the government, then it would be null and void for all who took it, and unjust in and of itself. But we would not presume such, on the contrary it is considered taken in the correct way.
All the ad hominem attacks on this person are a distraction from the issue he has brought forth, an issue of vast importance. That so many people care about this individual person’s life to such an extent I do not accept – they care about the issue, and the politicians their own culpability, but instead of speaking to it, because it is not defensible, are using this person, attacking him, as a tool to distract from it.
That too is immoral, to use a person in this fashion. Who would wish to be used this way?
B
BroomWagon
Guest
This was info we needed to know, one just wonders why he’d go to China. Also, he could have done this a different way, being a “whistleblower” instead.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
the traitor who did some good, unfortunately, by running to China, he squandered any consideration he’d get in his sentencing.
O
oldcelt
Guest
That’s where I fall. There can be no defense for exposing classified information, but I do think that we need increased oversight of these programs by Congress. Just because we have the capability to monitor someone’s activities does not mean that we should necessarily do so.
I go with the notion of reasonable suspicion…if there is reason to suspect that someone is engaging with criminal or terrorist elements, then you go and get the warrant to begin watching them…not watch everyone hoping to find something.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I agree with the reasonable suspicion to start the process.
the traitor did expose some horrendous abuses, but running to china instead of accepting responsibility (like Ellsberg, even, to an extent, like Manning who had an arguably decent motive) erases any sympathy. I wonder what his primary purpose was. maybe it was just espionage and the whistle blowing a smokescreen.
T
tuscany
Guest
**I would like to know exactly what “classified” info. he did expose. I don’t have all the details, but before I decide what I think of what Snowdon did, I need the true details, not just this administration’s version of it. Not that they would ever lie about things…
Snowdon possibly did think to go to a Congressman but he knows how much info the gov. has on everyone. Would it not be logical for him to now assume that since the gov. has incriminating or embarrassing info. on all of us or someone in our family, that whoever he went to to tell might be scared off by this same gov. ? How does he know for sure who the “Untouchables” are, and who can be scared off ?**
Snowdon possibly did think to go to a Congressman but he knows how much info the gov. has on everyone. Would it not be logical for him to now assume that since the gov. has incriminating or embarrassing info. on all of us or someone in our family, that whoever he went to to tell might be scared off by this same gov. ? How does he know for sure who the “Untouchables” are, and who can be scared off ?**
F
Fairwinds
Guest
this is getting into potboiler territory.
T
tabycat
Guest
I think that Snowden is both a hero and a traitor. So how is that for ‘CAF political logic’?
T
tuscany
Guest
**Fairwinds,
So you are saying that our gov. CAN’T be corrupt ? That our gov. isn’t taking over previously privately owned companies ? That more and more isn’t being run by the gov. ? That the gov. isn’t getting more and more powerful ? That private info. on people isn’t power over them ?
Yea O.K., I’M the crack smoker…
**
So you are saying that our gov. CAN’T be corrupt ? That our gov. isn’t taking over previously privately owned companies ? That more and more isn’t being run by the gov. ? That the gov. isn’t getting more and more powerful ? That private info. on people isn’t power over them ?
Yea O.K., I’M the crack smoker…
**
F
Fairwinds
Guest
they’re not mutually exclusive, but now I’m wondering if this isn’t more espionage rather than whistle blowing. we’ll know more when he resurfaces in the Peoples Republic.I think that Snowden is both a hero and a traitor. So how is that for ‘CAF political logic’?
- Status