Bleacher Bums Forum

Snowden didn't sit in the front of the bus. He is a thief and a profiteer who has put innocent people's lives at risk. He has harmed his country. I'm not arguing what he did was illegal. Everyone knows it was illegal. I'm arguing it was immoral.

Snowden feels it's wrong for a free nation to spy on their own people. So...as a remedy...he hides out in Russia...a place where they have never dreamed of spying on their own people.

Sure, what choice did he have. It was there or Ecuador. Patriot/Hero/Martyrs must suffer a little. I'm sure the Russians can afford to pay a little better.

The only thing I'll add to this discussion is that we're treading ground where a federal republic can begin to trip itself up: when it decides to take action upon the population without telling the population. When that happens we don't know what we're voting for. We cannot trust lawmakers because we don't know what they're doing behind closed doors. I understand that certain things need to be classified. I'm not so naïve as to suggest  there should be no government secrets. But there is a line that is crossed when certain basic liberties the general population believes it enjoys are infringed upon without their knowledge or consent. Many here are much more knowledgeable than me on this topic, but from what I've come to understand, not only has the NSA (along with other government agencies) collected data that most people would assume is off limits, some within the NSA have also taken it upon themselves to go above and beyond what is permitted to them by the FISA courts, etc. When secretive actions surpass their secretive systems of checks and balances, I think that is cause for concern. I am not justifying Snowden's actions, but in a topic so polarizing, it's easy to miss the other side of the argument.

I think Snowden has crossed the line, especially with some of his more recent leaks. If he had left it to simply showing the American population that they're surveilled quite a bit in ways that might surprise them, in ways that seem to bypass basic protections afforded by the Constitution, I think I'd be closer to jes' side of the argument. What continues to leak out though is increasingly damaging, and it's incredibly unfortunate that Snowden has decided to take it this far.

If we are at war, which we are not, and if the secrets involve the time and manner and scope and targets of a military attack, I have no problem with classifying that information or criminally punishing someone who deliberately provided that information to the enemy for the purpose of allowing the enemy to use it against us in a pre-emptive or defensive manner.

None of that describes what Snowden did, though some of it does describe what Obama and Kerry are doing.

In a democratic society very little information about government actions, plans or expenditures, should be kept secret.

If you do not want a democratic society, then it is easy to justify keeping secret anything those running the show want to keep secret.

So if we are NOT at war, there should be no Security Secrets?

By the way, you didn't answer my questions.  Since you agree that there should be SOME security secrets, do by believe that anyone with knowledge of them should have the legal right to publish them if he doesn't agree with keeping them secret?

So if we are NOT at war, there should be no Security Secrets?

I can't think of any, but the question is not really relevant to the question at hand.  The question in classifying any document should not be determined based on whether there might be some situation in which a democratic government should keep something should be secret from the people who vote into and out of office those running the government, but instead whether the specific document at issue should be secret.

What we have seen time after time is that information is classified far, far to aggressively than can possibly be rationally defended.... and yet which you appear willing to defend.

By the way, you didn't answer my questions. 

If I didn't, perhaps you didn't ask them well, or they appeared too foolish to bother with, or I missed them, but arguing over whether you did or didn't ask them is counter-productive, so....

Since you agree that there should be SOME security secrets, do by believe that anyone with knowledge of them should have the legal right to publish them if he doesn't agree with keeping them secret?

Just so we keep the conversation clear, could you read that question aloud to yourself and then perhaps re-write it?  I think there may be a typo or some other error in it, and I don't want to assume what you meant, but instead to respond to a clear question.

And that explains why libertarians so seldom (fortunately) achieve national office.

It is easy to win an argument (at least in your own mind) when you ascribe actions and wishes to the other side.

When have I ever said that we should nuke someone that is on the verge of developing their own nuclear weapons.  Even you must realizing that giving away our secrets is not quite identical to nuking other nations when we are not at war.

unless good war hawks like yourself had nuked them first, totally destroying their capability of doing so

If I have to read you posts, the least you could do is read them yourself.