And the crimes against the constitution are a far more serious matter than what he did.
Snowden may have harmed some people but total disregard for the bill of rights hurts us all and last for generations if not stopped.

A crime against the Constitution is a crime against all of us.

In true Orwellian wonder, truth is lies, lies.....they'll have us believe, is the truth. Sadly, in order for this to occur there has to be a level of incompetence beyond belief with the media. Education has to be replaced by training. Political debates have to be structured so that no in-depth understanding of any subject matter occurs ("you've got 90 seconds, what is the biggest problem facing our country?&quot . And an endless stream of babble and blur to blind the american people to what is happening before them. In short, NCTA is the strategy.......no critical thinking allowed.

>>>Political debates have to be structured so that no in-depth understanding of any subject matter occurs ("you've got 90 seconds, what is the biggest problem facing our country?&quot . And an endless stream of babble and blur to blind the american people to what is happening before them. In short, NCTA is the strategy.......no critical thinking allowed.>>>


Welcome to DU.

And don't be a stranger.

What you said so well...Debate structure handled by the DNC is anti-intellectual...


Welcome to DU...

I agree with you on all points.

Welcome to DU and don't be a stranger. Keep writing excellent posts.

I don't really like the labeling business, where he's got to be either a hero or a traitor.

Snowden made public information that the American people need to know about what our government is doing, in gross violation of our rights. He did so knowing there are no real, viable, safe channels for whistleblowers. He gave up the good life he had to follow his conscience.

I never thought of that till you said it.

I'm not sure what we could do. I suppose it starts with acknowledging the gravity of what he disclosed. I feel like just after he made the disclosures there was a very effortful attempt to do that -- effortful because it was so hard to get past all the talk about whether he was a hero or a traitor. That question is a distraction.

We're being observed with every keystroke, and every word we type or speak on the phone will strengthen the government's position should it wish to take us on. This is true whether they can find something we might wish to hide or not, and it will serve to intimidate many people from speaking out.

What I always said is what davemac posted: I am glad he made the disclosure, which he made at a cost to him. Beyond that, I had no position.

What we can do about it. Initially, there were some demonstrations around 4th amendment rights. There were small and, AFAIK, petered out entirely.

Demonstrations are much easier in Europe than they are here. The size of this country alone is an impediment. Union busting has been another impediment. The right has its church network and other astroturf networks. The left, not so much.

Snowden worked for a contractor, not directly for the NSA. There was no whistle blower protection available for him.

The hypocrisy is that Hillary can set up her own server, holding tens of thousands of government documents and can run for President, with no penalty for not complying with government rules and regulations. While Snowden should come home, not face a fair trial, and serve possibly decades in prison, like Manning.

A Snowden showed that laws were being broken. Micheal Hayden lied to Congress about what NSA was doing. Hayden and those who violated US law are not being held responsible.

In this, my focus has been on the disclosures and not on Snowden. Those more focused on Snowden can cite chapter and verse to debate all that. Not only am I unable to do that, but I have no interest in doing it. He is one person and he knew what risk he was taking. The much bigger issue for me is the Bill of Rights for all current and future Americans.

Why would he even consider coming back if Russia offers him a government free of the NSA?

Snowden can come home when he is ready to face the jury of his peers per our laws.

in which, much of his evidence was classified and the judge would not allow the defense to presnt their case and evident to the jury.

in a military court. She pleaded guilty to ten charges and then was tried for thirteen more.
Unlike Snowden, she did not run to China or Russia.

ask questions of myself. LOL

I don't know how claiming that you don't usually ask yourself questions relates to that.

I gave you my opinion, hoping that we could move back to an actual discussion.

I agree with Bernie that Snowden did the citizens of the US and our country a great service in revealing the existence of the excessively intrusive NSA program, but that he may have violated our laws and therefore should face some prison time, but not nearly what the extremely ignorant and anti-Snowden critics would like.

The issues are complex. Snowden probably did not have the whistleblower protection that Hillary Clinton so harshly criticized him for not using. How could he use something he did not have? A number of whistleblowers are now in prison.

There is a precedent for reducing a sentence for violating the laws that Snowden is alleged to have violated -- and that prominent precedent is Petraeus.

See my post #29.

OMalley like Clinton, looks to be a tool. Sanders gave the only honest answer. God bless that Man. Snowden should be given a fair trial -NO state secrets BS. Straight up -for the American people. As far as I can see he's a f'n hero who broke the law (with no other choice.)
Stonecarver

will find a safe way for Snowden to return and face a FAIR trial without the worry of execution...

the 1%er and O'Malley were simply WRONG...

the unconstitutional programs he observed.

If members of Congress had called a hearing and he had testified publicly in a limited way about what was going on, perhaps he could have earned immunity.

Remember the Iran-Contra hearings? Oliver North was granted immunity for testifying in Congress.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-09-17/news/1991260033_1_oliver-north-colonel-north-immunity

Seems to me that Congress should reach out to future whistleblowers like Snowden and let them know that it will grant them immunity if they testify in a way that protects national security about potential violations of our laws by government entities like the NSA (and others).

I didn't think about Ollie...but you are correct...

laws are when she harshly chastised Snowden as she did and when she commented that he should have gone through proper channels to blow the whistle.

Here, the New Yorker explains this very well:

From a civil-liberties perspective—and a factual perspective—Clinton’s answers were disturbing enough that they warrant parsing.

Did Snowden break the law? In passing classified information to reporters, he did. The Espionage Act explicitly prohibits such actions. But this violation surely needs to be balanced against the public service that Snowden carried out in informing the American public about the extent to which their government had been spying on them. “I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined,” Bernie Sanders pointed out, immediately after Clinton spoke. “He did—he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that. But I think what he did in educating us should be taken into consideration.”

Evidently, Clinton disagrees. In saying that Snowden should have invoked “all of the protections of being a whistle-blower,” she was repeating an argument that President Obama has made. But it doesn’t withstand inspection. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, which provided legal immunity to government employers who reveal lawbreaking, malfeasance, or abuse of authority, doesn’t apply to employees of the intelligence agencies, including contractors like Snowden. These workers are covered by the 1998 Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act; but, as, Michael German, a senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, pointed out, in 2013, “it is no more than a trap.”

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, former FBI special agent Coleen Rowley, and Jesselyn Radack, former Justice Department trial attorney and ethics adviser, and now director of National Security and Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project, also took part in Monday's discussion.

The whistleblowers also widely agreed that the light sentence handed down last week for General David Petraeus exemplifies the favorable treatment given to certain leakers, and stands in marked contrast to the treatment of others such as Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou, and the soon-to-be-sentenced Jeffrey Sterling—who have all been charged under the Espionage Act.

about whistle blower protection

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/16/edward-snowden-hillary-clinton-false-claim-whistleblower-protection