Snowden STILL a hero

[SmarterthanYou]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/video-judge-napolitano/

Fox News Sr. Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano joined Lou Dobbs to discuss the Edward Snowden NSA whistleblower case. Judge Andrew Napolitano asks the question of whether Snowden is bound by an obligation to keep secrets, or the duty to uphold the constitution. Dobbs asked whether the Judge believes there should be some trepidation about calling Snowden a hero before we have all of the facts regarding the case. Judge Napolitano was not troubled by any of the issues involved because he rejects the idea that we should be dwelling on what Snowden’s motivations were. He believes we should be focusing on the illegal acts the government is doing now in our name. Judge Napolitano made a distinction between legal and constitutional when he said,

“In Congress’s mind, whatever they say is legal is legal… What the government has done is legal because the PATRIOT authorizes it, but profoundly unconstitutional because the congress has attempted to disregard the constitution.”​

 

[tekkychick]

I still think he's a twit, but hey - each of us can have whatever hero they prefer.

 

[Red Mule]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/video-judge-napolitano/

Fox News Sr. Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano joined Lou Dobbs to discuss the Edward Snowden NSA whistleblower case. Judge Andrew Napolitano asks the question of whether Snowden is bound by an obligation to keep secrets, or the duty to uphold the constitution. Dobbs asked whether the Judge believes there should be some trepidation about calling Snowden a hero before we have all of the facts regarding the case. Judge Napolitano was not troubled by any of the issues involved because he rejects the idea that we should be dwelling on what Snowden’s motivations were. He believes we should be focusing on the illegal acts the government is doing now in our name. Judge Napolitano made a distinction between legal and constitutional when he said,

“In Congress’s mind, whatever they say is legal is legal… What the government has done is legal because the PATRIOT authorizes it, but profoundly unconstitutional because the congress has attempted to disregard the constitution.”​

I think some people get as hung up on their reading of the constitution as others get hung up on the bible. Both seem to be open to interpretation. Luckily, the constitution provided instructions. Like who gets to make laws (Congress), who gets to approve them (President), and who get to decide if they are constitutional (SCOTUS). THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM LEGAL OR NOT. I imagine that as long as any responsible and many not so responsible people want to challenge our government's right to spying and secrecy, it will end up in the SCOTUS. Even then, they can screw it up aka: Citizens United.

BUT! I'm pretty sure Judge Napolitano is not the final word of exactly what is constitutional. Now, we can argue (and I'm sure we will) about exactly what SHOULD be legal, and then Nappy's OPINION should get just as much press as yours and mine.

Back to Snowden.... I am pretty sure he had to sign a promise to keep our country's secrets when he applied for his clearance. I know I did. Nobody makes you sign that agreement. And he should have been aware that disclosing those secrets was against the law and he would be punished if he did. There is no doubt (he already admitted to it) that he broke the law. If he believes so strongly it was his duty to disclose this information for public dissemination he should have no problem paying the price. In my opinion he is no hero. A hero would not have run away to hide. Nor do we yet know the entirety of what he released. It could be far more damaging.

I am not really comfortable arguing against transparency of information. And in most things I still believe in it. I am old enough to remember the release of the Pentagon Papers. In that case, the secret information was something only being kept from the American people. The enemy already knew what we were doing!

Today's challenge is dealing with criminals and terrorists, I know they will use our freedom of information against us with terrible consequences. Given a choice of aiding and abetting our enemies or trusting our government to not abuse private information, I'll pick the latter. That is not to say that we should not punish anyone working for our government if they abuse that trust. Including Mr. Snowden.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I think some people get as hung up on their reading of the constitution as others get hung up on the bible. Both seem to be open to interpretation. Luckily, the constitution provided instructions. Like who gets to make laws (Congress), who gets to approve them (President), and who get to decide if they are constitutional (SCOTUS). THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM LEGAL OR NOT. I imagine that as long as any responsible and many not so responsible people want to challenge our government's right to spying and secrecy, it will end up in the SCOTUS. Even then, they can screw it up aka: Citizens United.

BUT! I'm pretty sure Judge Napolitano is not the final word of exactly what is constitutional. Now, we can argue (and I'm sure we will) about exactly what SHOULD be legal, and then Nappy's OPINION should get just as much press as yours and mine.

Back to Snowden.... I am pretty sure he had to sign a promise to keep our country's secrets when he applied for his clearance. I know I did. Nobody makes you sign that agreement. And he should have been aware that disclosing those secrets was against the law and he would be punished if he did. There is no doubt (he already admitted to it) that he broke the law. If he believes so strongly it was his duty to disclose this information for public dissemination he should have no problem paying the price. In my opinion he is no hero. A hero would not have run away to hide. Nor do we yet know the entirety of what he released. It could be far more damaging.

I am not really comfortable arguing against transparency of information. And in most things I still believe in it. I am old enough to remember the release of the Pentagon Papers. In that case, the secret information was something only being kept from the American people. The enemy already knew what we were doing!

Today's challenge is dealing with criminals and terrorists, I know they will use our freedom of information against us with terrible consequences. Given a choice of aiding and abetting our enemies or trusting our government to not abuse private information, I'll pick the latter. That is not to say that we should not punish anyone working for our government if they abuse that trust. Including Mr. Snowden.

False dilemma.

 

[Red Mule]

False dilemma.

And therefore your consideration of the facts and your conclusion is wrong.

I figure since just finding a fancy way of saying you disagree is what passes for debate here, I'm enjoy myself with some too.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

And therefore your consideration of the facts and your conclusion is wrong.

I figure since just finding a fancy way of saying you disagree is what passes for debate here, I'm enjoy myself with some too.

No, its not facts that you presented. Its false dilemma, a logical fallacy. "If we don't spy on everything everyone is doing everywhere all the time terrorists win!" Is essentially what you presented.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Back to Snowden.... I am pretty sure he had to sign a promise to keep our country's secrets when he applied for his clearance. I know I did. Nobody makes you sign that agreement. And he should have been aware that disclosing those secrets was against the law and he would be punished if he did. There is no doubt (he already admitted to it) that he broke the law. If he believes so strongly it was his duty to disclose this information for public dissemination he should have no problem paying the price. In my opinion he is no hero. A hero would not have run away to hide. Nor do we yet know the entirety of what he released. It could be far more damaging.

it should NEVER be a criminal act to expose criminal acts. But as we've seen several times in the past, the proles are only concerned with being safe, not being free, so it's no wonder that he ran to avoid the lynch mob of terrified citizens

Today's challenge is dealing with criminals and terrorists, I know they will use our freedom of information against us with terrible consequences. Given a choice of aiding and abetting our enemies or trusting our government to not abuse private information, I'll pick the latter. That is not to say that we should not punish anyone working for our government if they abuse that trust. Including Mr. Snowden.

that puts you in the sheeple category, congrats.

 

[Red Mule]

No, its not facts that you presented. Its false dilemma, a logical fallacy. "If we don't spy on everything everyone is doing everywhere all the time terrorists win!" Is essentially what you presented.

Then you are welcome to present a set of facts you believe describe the situation better (you didn't provide ANYTHING BTW) and I/we can decide which we prefer. I believe if we KNEW in advance who the bad guys were, you would of course, be entirely correct. We need only spy on them. But, when a couple of young men set off a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, I want to know who they have been talking to. I want to know if there is someone else about to do the same thing somewhere else.

And if you have some way of making sure we will have all the information available when we need it without collecting even info we don't yet know we will need, I'm sure I and our intelligence agencies would really like to hear it. They might even offer you a job. Maybe Snowden's job.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Then you are welcome to present a set of facts you believe describe the situation better (you didn't provide ANYTHING BTW) and I/we can decide which we prefer. I believe if we KNEW in advance who the bad guys were, you would of course, be entirely correct. We need only spy on them. But, when a couple of young men set off a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, I want to know who they have been talking to. I want to know if there is someone else about to do the same thing somewhere else.

And if you have some way of making sure we will have all the information available when we need it without collecting even info we don't yet know we will need, I'm sure I and our intelligence agencies would really like to hear it. They might even offer you a job. Maybe Snowden's job.

You asserted a logical fallacy, I pointed it out. Don't get upset over the use of such tactics.

 

[DamnYankee]

I think some people get as hung up on their reading of the constitution as others get hung up on the bible. Both seem to be open to interpretation. Luckily, the constitution provided instructions. Like who gets to make laws (Congress), who gets to approve them (President), and who get to decide if they are constitutional (SCOTUS). THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM LEGAL OR NOT.

Were Jim Crow laws legal?

 

[Howey]

it should NEVER be a criminal act to expose criminal acts. But as we've seen several times in the past, the proles are only concerned with being safe, not being free, so it's no wonder that he ran to avoid the lynch mob of terrified citizens

that puts you in the sheeple category, congrats.

We're getting a clearer picture of how you earned that BCD. Snowden is a coward who spilled the beans and ran behind Mama China's skirt to hide.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I didn't think it was too cool for him to start blabbing about our hacking of China and Hong Kong, but then I remembered what Spock says: Military secrets are the most fleeting of them all.

Everyone already knew and we know the do it to us and so on and so on. It's embarrassing, not revelatory.

 

[evince]

I think the kid is a chineese spy.

there is a reason he chose Hong Kong.

Its not just their laws

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We're getting a clearer picture of how you earned that BCD. Snowden is a coward who spilled the beans and ran behind Mama China's skirt to hide.

and we're getting a clearer picture of just how stupid you truly are.

 

[evince]

The guy doesnt seem really who he is pretending to be.

when I watch him speak there is an underlying level of "your buying it" laced into his look.


The kid is hiding his motives.


He is a ron paul guy I think.


That means money is the top priority for him.


China has alot of money to give a smuck like him

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The guy doesnt seem really who he is pretending to be.

when I watch him speak there is an underlying level of "your buying it" laced into his look.


The kid is hiding his motives.


He is a ron paul guy I think.


That means money is the top priority for him.


China has alot of money to give a smuck like him

really desh? really?

 

[Red Mule]

You asserted a logical fallacy, I pointed it out. Don't get upset over the use of such tactics.

And I continue to dispute your claim.

In EXACTLY what way is what I posted a "logical fallacy"? You just saying it does not make it so. As the old says goes, "Slpain yerself!"

Here... I'll even help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Provides a list of fallacies, formal and informal as well as mathematical. Which one are you referring to and why? I'm always open to be educated and am NOT upset.
Well, except a little bit in regards to you thinking you could make an unsupported or unexplained proposition (itself a logical fallacy - as in ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...10679510_ss1-120_.22informal_fallacy.22.5D-12

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDamer2009165-13[/SUP]

Oh, your assertion could also fit into several other categories as well. As could almost any philosophical assertions (opinions for a more simple term) when one is looking for a mathematical precision that is so seldom present in most human interactions.

I stand by my opinion and am willing to consider your opinion,if you will ever decide to present it.

But as long as you continue to say "is not" - using whatever terminology you like without explanation, then I will continue to say "is so" using whatever terminology I like. And, believe me, I can get quite creative.

Or you could just say, "I don't agree" and leave it at that.

 

[tekkychick]

I didn't think it was too cool for him to start blabbing about our hacking of China and Hong Kong, but then I remembered what Spock says: Military secrets are the most fleeting of them all.

Everyone already knew and we know the do it to us and so on and so on. It's embarrassing, not revelatory.

If we WEREN'T hacking China and Hong Kong servers, I'd really wonder. I'm assuming we're trying to hack everyone's servers, friends or not.

But yeah, it's embarrassing to have it publicly admitted. But I'm sure everyone already knew.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

And I continue to dispute your claim.

In EXACTLY what way is what I posted a "logical fallacy"? You just saying it does not make it so. As the old says goes, "Slpain yerself!"

Here... I'll even help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Provides a list of fallacies, formal and informal as well as mathematical. Which one are you referring to and why? I'm always open to be educated and am NOT upset.
Well, except a little bit in regards to you thinking you could make an unsupported or unexplained proposition (itself a logical fallacy - as in ...

• Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).

Oh, your assertion could also fit into several other categories as well. As could almost any philosophical assertions (opinions for a more simple term) when one is looking for a mathematical precision that is so seldom present in most human interactions.

I stand by my opinion and am willing to consider your opinion,if you will ever decide to present it.

But as long as you continue to say "is not" - using whatever terminology you like without explanation, then I will continue to say "is so" using whatever terminology I like. And, believe me, I can get quite creative.

Or you could just say, "I don't agree" and leave it at that.

I don't think you are capable of understanding what a False Dilemma is. It's not up for debate. You presented a false dilemma, that's a logical fallacy, you got called on it. When a logical fallacy is presented, it's not to be debated against. The argument is flawed, therefore it is wrong.

 

[Socrtease]

The guy doesnt seem really who he is pretending to be.

when I watch him speak there is an underlying level of "your buying it" laced into his look.


The kid is hiding his motives.


He is a ron paul guy I think.


That means money is the top priority for him.


China has alot of money to give a smuck like him

Desh, I have never once heard you denounce the Obama administration for doing the same if not worse. I think what you really hate about Snowden is he exposed Obama and not just questionable government activities. The Obama administration is every bit as culpable for violations of our freedom and killing of innocents overseas as Bush was. Just accept this fact.