General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama: Mr. Snowden has been charged with three felonies.
See, now Ive forgotten your first question, which presumably was the more important one. No, I dont think Mr. Snowden was a patriot. As I said in my opening remarks, I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks.
My preference -- and I think the American peoples preference -- would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws, a thoughtful fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place. Because I never made claims that all the surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws had been put in place somehow didn't require potentially some additional reforms. That's exactly what I called for.
So the fact is, is that Mr. Snowden has been charged with three felonies. If, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case. If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community -- for the first time. So there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.
But having said that, once the leaks have happened, what weve seen is information come out in dribs and in drabs, sometimes coming out sideways. Once the information is out, the administration comes in, tries to correct the record. But by that time, its too late or weve moved on, and a general impression has, I think, taken hold not only among the American public but also around the world that somehow were out there willy-nilly just sucking in information on everybody and doing what we please with it.
That's not the case. Our laws specifically prohibit us from surveilling U.S. persons without a warrant. And there are a whole range of safeguards that have been put in place to make sure that that basic principle is abided by.
But what is clear is that whether, because of the instinctive bias of the intelligence community to keep everything very close -- and probably whats a fair criticism is my assumption that if we had checks and balances from the courts and Congress, that that traditional system of checks and balances would be enough to give people assurance that these programs were run probably -- that assumption I think proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks. I think people have questions about this program.
And so, as a consequence, I think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions. What Im going to be pushing the IC to do is rather than have a trunk come out here and leg come out there and a tail come out there, lets just put the whole elephant out there so people know exactly what they're looking at. Lets examine what is working, whats not, are there additional protections that can be put in place, and lets move forward.
And theres no doubt that Mr. Snowdens leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case if I had simply appointed this review board to go through, and I had sat down with Congress and we had worked this thing through. It would have been less exciting. It would not have generated as much press. I actually think we would have gotten to the same place, and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways that we are able to get intelligence that we need to secure the country.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/09/remarks-president-press-conference
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Post removed
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Semper Fi
Cha
(297,305 posts)You offer nothing to the article and the OP except a personal insult.
you have no merit.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Felony. Three of 'em.
Go ahead DUers... let's see who attacks the messenger [note: the President] first.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)I'm not a Snowden fan and I question a lot of what he did, but the administration has absolutely mangled this entire response. Further, given Obama's unbelievable attacks on whistleblowers while in office, I surely can't blame those who wonder re: our current justice system in their regard.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)I guess Snowden felt he couldn''t defend his actions.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)as does much of the world, even if, like me, they do not support nor trust Snowden.
George II
(67,782 posts)....as Obama suggested Snowden should do if he's truly "innocent".
While he's hiding out in Russia, I think Snowden should read the biography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Ed. Snowden has zero courage.
ZERO
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)wow, racking up felony charges is not a good way to go through life.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)or at least survive against an authoritarian, criminal system that you are out to expose, then you may choose to make your moves from exile.
Smart move. He successfully outmaneuvered nothing less than the NSA. Kind of amazing actually, and the howling from the local swarm is just a minor added pleasure.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Not a fan of that pesky 'innocent until proven guilty' part of the constitution, it seems."
...the President didn't declare him guilty or innocent. He stated that he has been charged with a three felonies.
Quote:
Now, Snowden stole the documents and fled the country. He admitted that he took the documents.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)Absolutely he DID.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)An ugly and poorly thought out response for a Constitutional Law Professor and a less than appropriate response for a President who maintains he is not taking this all extremely PERSONALLY .
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Doubt it appeals to Snowden fans though, even the one's who deny that they are.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)But, I really don't care to engage with you today... Rarely productive and it is Friday
ProSense
(116,464 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)George II
(67,782 posts).......did you read the rest of his response to the question?
Here it is!
"So the fact is, is that Mr. Snowden has been charged with three felonies. If, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case. If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community -- for the first time. So there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions."
millennialmax
(331 posts)But the SCOTUS decision in 'Coffin v. United States' established the presumption of innocence.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)that Obama is "attacking" used the proper channels - i.e reporting to the US Office of Special Counsel? Don't follow the guidelines, don't get protections. Simple concept, no?
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)I didn't see where anyone reported information through proper channels (the US Office of Special Counsel), just leaking to the press illegally.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)done nothing on the cases it has gotten or the whistleblower has paid the price for going through channels.
That's why they've gone directly to Congressmen or the press or elsewhere, which, by the way, is NOT necessarily illegal. That is a really bad assumption on your part.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Nothing about whistleblowers paying the price for going through proper channels though. If that was the case, I doubt whistleblowing to the OSC would be "skyrocketing".
If the leaks weren't illegal (and they are), there would be no crimes to prosecute.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)But, yes, individuals have lost jobs and had various forms of retribution--hardly something that is going to be fully documented in aggregate..
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Of at least one person reporting wrongdoing to the OSC and nowhere else, and losing their job or facing other retribution, if it's ever happened. I can't find one person making such a claim.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)and probably a Lexus Nexus search.... But if you want to find it, I have little doubt you will.
You might well start with the quashed EPA study on hydraulic fracking and water systems in Wyoming, though the whistleblowers there are probably facing blowback right now.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)First article said emails were being leaked to the New York Times. Nothing about reporting grievances to the OSC. Is this the right case?
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)shawn703
(2,702 posts)What reporter wouldn't want to add that tidbit to their story - wrongdoing was reported to the OSC but the OSC did nothing. That would add even more to the scandal.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)There is a CNN report, a NYT story and several others
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Who had complaints about how the OSC was run under Bush and his appointee to head up that office, but sounded hopeful for Obama's nominee Lerner in that role. Bush's war on whistleblowers perhaps, but not Obama's. On Mr. Smith's blog he mentions that his business does work for the Government, so it would appear whatever blacklisting he may have experienced has been worked out now. He told his story to the OSC, then to the media when the OSC declined to investigate. He did not face prosecution.
hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)hlthe2b
(102,292 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)then he will be presumed innocent at trial and the state will have to prove the charges against him.
Cha
(297,305 posts)But having said that, once the leaks have happened, what weve seen is information come out in dribs and in drabs, sometimes coming out sideways. Once the information is out, the administration comes in, tries to correct the record. But by that time, its too late or weve moved on, and a general impression has, I think, taken hold not only among the American public but also around the world that somehow were out there willy-nilly just sucking in information on everybody and doing what we please with it.
That's not the case. Our laws specifically prohibit us from surveilling U.S. persons without a warrant. And there are a whole range of safeguards that have been put in place to make sure that that basic principle is abided by.
"Russian Good! USA BAD!11"
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Maybe they can give Snowden the Bradley Manning suite in prison while he waits for trial.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But yes, it's factual that Snowden has been charged with 3 felonies, and that the President made mention of that today in his press conference. The President also told Major Garrett that he (Obama) would defend Major if people were saying untrue things about him (Garrett). And no, we never would have heard about any of this had Snowden not leaked the information in the way he did.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The collection of phone call records. Yes we have heard this before 2013.
Would you care to speculate the percentage of Americans in 2005 that heard about this and it registered somewhere in their brain?
Bet you wouldn't.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Tree to tell a lie when the truth sounds better on the ground.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)How silly
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)When the truth sounds better.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)I've never ignored anyone on DU in the 12 years I've been a member....but #1 I hate talking to people that talk in circles because they think it makes them sound smart and #2 wasting my time really makes me angry #3 you are either drunk or delusional when you think your replies make sense, and I really care less which.
So, welcome to my first ignore
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)emotions.
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... and what is legal.
I think Snowden and everyone else agrees what he did was not legal, but it may have been right.
The courts only decide what is legal, not always what is right.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)they determine guilty or not guilty.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Yeah a jury can do whatever it wants, but the judge doesn't tell them that. The judge will say you must follow the court's instructions.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)would know that it is up to the jury? The judge doesn't usually direct a verdict, in fact I would imagine that would be grounds for appeal.
Response to oldhippie (Reply #22)
davidn3600 This message was self-deleted by its author.
dkf
(37,305 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... that the consequences would be unjust.
George II
(67,782 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If he thought he did the right thing he would have stayed and let the justice system declare him innocent. He knew he stole, he knew he would be charged with espionage. He should be forth coming with his puppet masters, give them up for a lessor charge.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)But, but, but I was going to get around to it anyway! Snowden's revelations clearly forced Obama to consider reforms. Something members of congress couldn't seem to do.... Kinda makes Snowden a whistle blower.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Where I live, everybody finds him very weak.
Logical
(22,457 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)is that
1. individual conscience is more powerful than institutional secrets, and
2. institutional imperatives and the misplaced ethic of "gung ho" are not enough to secure loyalty.
People are not dogs, even if dogs are admirable.
They should not be treated like dogs and their merit should not depend on their loyalty or willingness to please alone.
If you work for an institution that demands so much and then so much more of you, work more than 40 hours a week for too long, you're bound to question, just what is it all for at the end of the day?
When the question shifts from what's in it for me? to what does it all mean? Then the reasons for loyalty come up for scrutiny.
Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning found their sincerity and humanity. And, having found these things, they found they could no longer play the game.
I don't like what Snowden did, but I think I can understand why he would have done it.
As for Bradley Manning, I forgave him when I first heard his story.
One is tortured, the other is hunted like an animal.
What an unforgiving world!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023437384
Caretha
(2,737 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...Russia
Caretha
(2,737 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)K & R
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have been charged with....?
CIA agents who participated in kidnapping and torture have been charged with....?
Drone pilots who murdered civilians have been charged with.....?