Edward Snowden; Hero or villain?

[XXTickerXX]

Venezuela has offered Snowden asylum.

[Rupert_Baehr]

And all the oil he can drink?

 

I wonder what Venezuela will receive in return (if he does decide to go there)?

[flamingjimmy]

SCARY TERRORISTS- not to be taken seriously then?

Not what I said. They should be taken very seriously, however not by giving up your freedoms, just by fighting them.

 

It would be a foolish leader.... no... more than foolish...a criminally negligent leader of any nation not to take every precaution and security measure possible to protect his country and it's citizens from harm.

 

The founding fathers would have held that to be the most self evident truth in existence.

No they really wouldn't, you are completely incorrect. They were quite explicit about it.

 

They absolutely would not have taken "every precaution and security measure possible"

 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

 

They would have taken every precaustion and security measure possible that did not violate the liberty of the people. Spying on people, listening to their phonecalls, and reading their e-mails, without probable cause would be out of the question.

 

It's no good assuming how long men would react or behave as it relates to situations in this day and age.

You are the one who just the other day said

 

"...if it were possible [the founding fathers] would have taken drastic measures to make sure [a repeat of 9/11] didnt happen even to the point of amending the constitution"

 

You can't criticise me for playing what-if when you're doing the same thing yourself.

 

Your position has not been 'we don't know how they would have reacted' your position has been 'they would have reacted like I have', and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise, or is your memory really that bad?

 

---------- Post added 06-07-2013 at 18:39 ----------

 

Thomas Jefferson was familiar with terrorists. They wore red coats and carried muskets and murdered some of the men who had helped them win the French American war.

 

Jefferson thought liberty was worth more than the lives of a few patriots, to the point of advocating the idea of a second violent revolution at some later point, just to keep the government on their toes:

 

"The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

[Harleyman]

Not what I said. They should be taken very seriously, however not by giving up your freedoms, just by fighting them.

 

No they really wouldn't, you are completely incorrect. They were quite explicit about it.

 

They absolutely would not have taken "every precaution and security measure possible"

 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

 

They would have taken every precaustion and security measure possible that did not violate the liberty of the people. Spying on people, listening to their phonecalls, and reading their e-mails, without probable cause would be out of the question.

 

You are the one who just the other day said

 

"...if it were possible [the founding fathers] would have taken drastic measures to make sure [a repeat of 9/11] didnt happen even to the point of amending the constitution"

 

You can't criticise me for playing what-if when you're doing the same thing yourself.

 

Your position has not been 'we don't know how they would have reacted' your position has been 'they would have reacted like I have', and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise, or is your memory really that bad?

 

So you're President Jimmy sitting in the white house until 2016. You tell the NSA "nope no more surveillance of phone calls or E-mails...absolutely none whatsoever"

 

Then you are asked the question "What other means do we have to track the activities of known terrorist groups. We have drones, we have satellites but they only do part of the job"

 

And your answer to that is................

[flamingjimmy]

So you're President Jimmy sitting in the white house until 2016. You tell the NSA "nope no more surveillance of phone calls or E-mails...absolutely none whatsoever"

You keep leaving out the 'without probable cause' part, why is that?

 

Then you are asked the question "What other means do we have to track the activities of known terrorist groups. We have drones, we have satellites but they only do part of the job"

If it's a 'known terrorist group' then you really shouldn't have any trouble getting a warrant to monitor them so no problem there, just use the same evidence that is the reason you know they're a terrorist group.

[dosxuk]

You keep leaving out the 'without probable cause' part, why is that?

 

If it's a 'known terrorist group' then you really shouldn't have any trouble getting a warrant to monitor them so no problem there, just use the same evidence that is the reason you know they're a terrorist group.

 

I wonder what would happen if Edward Snowden had revealed plans by the American authorities to ban private ownership of guns? On the one hand he's a threat to the nation's security, but on the other he's revealing stuff the American public want to know... My guess is they'd end up like a buttered cat paradox

[Harleyman]

You keep leaving out the 'without probable cause' part, why is that?

 

If it's a 'known terrorist group' then you really shouldn't have any trouble getting a warrant to monitor them so no problem there, just use the same evidence that is the reason you know they're a terrorist group.

 

How about the freelancers? The lone wolves?

[altus]

How about the freelancers? The lone wolves?

 

Would they do much communicating with other terrorists?

[Harleyman]

Would they do much communicating with other terrorists?

 

What does that matter if they did or not? Al Qaeda has splintered off into various little groups since 9/11 and these groups operate in very small numbers without direction or planning from a central source. There are also indivduals who either work alone or with one or two others and not associated with any known group.

The two Russian brothers who were responsible for the Boston bombings operated as individuals and the US army officer Major Hassan,,,, American born became radicalized through spending a lot of time on Jihad websites.

He gunned down 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

 

Fact is neither you nor I know much about how anti-terrorist activities need to be operated. We see only 1/10 above the surface. How many potential attacks have been prevented by surveillance attacks? Can you answer that?

 

Maybe Snowden might have a clue but he would be the last one to reveal that information. That kind of revelation would burst his bubble

[LeMaquis]

Then you are asked the question "What other means do we have to track the activities of known terrorist groups.

 

The USA's European allies have formed a known terrorist group?

 

---------- Post added 06-07-2013 at 23:54 ----------

 

What does that matter if they did or not?

 

If they don't communicate their intentions what's the use of monitoring their communications? How would you know who to monitor if they give nothing away?