General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhistleblower defined by the United States government
[limg][/img]
For those "confused".
Yes Snowden is a whistleblower.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)We can all disagree with the FISA Act / NSA / etc - but it is currently legal.
Congress passed the law, the Courts are involved, and the President is backing it.
If we don't like it then we can damn that the law is changed.
What Snowden did was wrong.
He should have gone thru the proper channels, instead he fled to Hong Kong.
In my opinion he is a traitor to the USA.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)and being a whistleblower doesn't mean it has to be exposing anything illegal. Read the poster by the United States government.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)...the list.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... how a real whistleblower 'discloses' information thru a secure channel.
Snowden went to the press and disclosed classified information. He is a traitor.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)fleeing to China isn't going to the office of special counsel. when you makes demands of media, newspapers for the story its not whistleblowing.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Besides when did we all of a sudden start defending deplorable acts because they're legal. The 1% do everything they do legally because they have the legislators write the laws for them. Does that mean we shouldn't complain about what the 1% do to the rest of the 99%?
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)doesn't understand their own definition of whistle blowing.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I will not support someone that has committed a crime against our country - and that is what Snowden has done.
He needs to be arrested ASAP, and put on trial.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I'm not saying I support or don't support how he did it. What I will say is I don't support what the NSA is doing.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Whereas Snowden has committed a criminal act.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)the current administration and Congress to do something about the Patriot Act. But apparently all anybody is interested in is making sure their party or their guy doesn't look bad. If we don't put pressure on this administration and this Congress to change the Patriot Act who will change it? The next republican administration and republican Congress?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He better get a good lawyer.
"Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987178
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Under two categories applies to Snowden.
He is a whistleblower, which is why other historically famous whistleblowers back him.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)My senses are telling me that the pros have painted themselves in a corner.
newmember
(805 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)Instead he fled to China like a traitor.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower'
Article here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989251
one_voice
(20,043 posts)go to the U.S. Office Of Special Counsel?
Says right there on your spiffy little picture that OSC provides secure channels for said 'whistleblowers'. That's where Mr. 'Whistleblower' was supposed to go according to your picture.
I think you lose the 'whistleblower' status when you run to the media instead of going to proper channels. You can't hide behind the gov't definition but not follow the rules that go with that definition.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)whistleblower.
Nice try though.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)BUT...a reasonable argument can be made that he's not by definition a 'whistleblower' since he ran to Hong Kong. Criminals run, it would appear by your picture whistleblowers aren't criminals.
So the argument can and should be made.
It's semantics as far as I'm concerned. I don't think he's a hero or a traitor. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about him.
I was just making an observation.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)newmember
(805 posts)newmember
(805 posts)Definition of MAY
1
a archaic : have the ability to
b : have permission to <you may go now> : be free to <a rug on which children may sprawl C. E. Silberman> used nearly interchangeably with can
c used to indicate possibility or probability <you may be right> <things you may need> ; sometimes used interchangeably with can <one of those slipups that may happen from time to time Jessica Mitford> ; sometimes used where might would be expected <you may think from a little distance that the country was solid woods Robert Frost>
2
used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction <may the best man win>
3
used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation <I laugh that I may not weep> or contingency <she'll do her duty come what may> or concession <he may be slow but he is thorough> or choice <the angler may catch them with a dip net, or he may cast a large, bare treble hook Nelson Bryant>
4
: shall, must used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation
must 1 (mst)
v.
v.aux.
1. To be obliged or required by morality, law, or custom: Citizens must register in order to vote.
2. To be compelled, as by a physical necessity or requirement: Plants must have oxygen in order to live.
3. Used to express a command or admonition: You must not go there alone. You simply must be careful.
4. To be determined to; have as a fixed resolve: If you must leave, do it quietly.
5.
a. Used to indicate inevitability or certainty: We all must die.
b. Used to indicate logical probability or presumptive certainty
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I know how to use a dictionary. I know the difference between the two.
This wasn't necessary. I don't need to be talked down to, I didn't do that to you or anyone else.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)I don't think so but Englsh is not my first language, hence the question.
markiv
(1,489 posts)the power of the people you're blowing the whistle on
we'd love to think we're past that
but, we aren't
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Currie, January 28, 1786
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)My guess is that otherwise he'd have gone to prison.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)think
(11,641 posts)~Snip~
On May 9, further evidence of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg was revealed in court. The FBI had recorded numerous conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg without a court order, and furthermore the prosecution had failed to share this evidence with the defense.[24] During the trial, Byrne also revealed that he personally met twice with John Ehrlichman, who offered him directorship of the FBI. Byrne said he refused to consider the offer while the Ellsberg case was pending, though he was criticized for even agreeing to meet with Ehrlichman during the case.[23]
Due to the gross governmental misconduct and illegal evidence gathering, and the defense by Leonard Boudin and Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson, Judge Byrne dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973 after the government claimed it had lost records of wiretapping against Ellsberg. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case."[23]
As a result of the revelation of the Fielding break-in during the trial, John Ehrlichman, H R Haldeman, Richard Kleindienst and John Dean were forced out of office on April 30, and all would later be convicted of crimes related to the Watergate scandal. Egil Krogh later pleaded guilty to conspiracy, and White House counsel Charles Colson pleaded no contest for obstruction of justice in the burglary. "The court concluded that Nixon, Mitchell, and Haldeman had violated the Halperins' Fourth Amendment rights, but not the terms of Title III. The Halperins were awarded $1 in nominal damages in August 1977."[25][26]
Ellsberg later claimed that after his trial ended, Watergate prosecutor William H. Merrill informed him of an aborted plot by Liddy and the "plumbers" to have 12 Cuban-Americans who had previously worked for the CIA to "totally incapacitate" Ellsberg as he appeared at a public rally, though it is unclear whether that meant to assassinate Ellsberg or merely to hospitalize him.[27][28] In his autobiography, Liddy describes an "Ellsberg neutralization proposal" originating from Howard Hunt, which involved drugging Ellsberg with LSD, by dissolving it in his soup, at a fund-raising dinner in Washington in order to "have Ellsberg incoherent by the time he was to speak" and thus "make him appear a near burnt-out drug case" and "discredit him". The plot involved waiters from the Miami Cuban community. According to Liddy, when the plan was finally approved, "there was no longer enough lead time to get the Cuban waiters up from their Miami hotels and into place in the Washington Hotel where the dinner was to take place" and the plan was "put into abeyance pending another opportunity".[29]
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg#Trial_and_mistrial
Do you consider Ellsberg a traitor too who SHOULD be in jail for exposing war crimes?
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)See: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33918.pdf
Specifically CRS-5
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)If a have a reason to believe that even highest office of the land will try and suppress evidence of wrongdoing I should report it to them anyway? Just because they said I must? Nice racket that one is.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)DU OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022988977
So, let's arrest him and bring him to trial.
Then toss him into prison.
p.s. President's can't pardon someone that has not yet been convicted.