Edward Snowden - Hero Or Traitor?
 

I'm wondering what everyones opinion is on what has been going on the past two weeks with this Snowden debacle. At first I was on the fence about him, but the more this guy talks the bigger of a creep he appears to be.

Had he just leaked the info of the NSA collecting phone and internet data of U.S. citizens I would most likely see him as a whistleblower of sorts, but his actions since going to Hong Kong are more in lines of a traitor than a whistleblower. I can only assume the reason China and Russia are being so accommodating to Snowden is because he is giving them unfettered access to all of the info he stole from the NSA.

Then I read this little gem today..

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/24/politi...html?hpt=hp_c2

So he took the job as a contractor with the NSA just so he could steal secrets and take them to China and Russia and maybe even now Cuba.. That is the same thing Bradley Manning did :rolleyes: IMHO he's a straight up traitor.

My very quick, to-the-point opinion is that if he actually thought what he did was right (for his country), he would face the music and defend himself.

This. He's a traitor.

Agree with all points above. Traitor. "Heros" don't bring information that might compromise American security/put Americans in danger to the Chinese and Russians. There are enough American newspapers and news organizations that he could have taken the info to if he truly wanted to shed light on the programs and nothing more.

I agree.

He's a hero. No different than the folks who risk their lives in combat. What he's doing is protecting the civil rights of all of us against a government who is spying on its own citizens without probable cause of any kind.

I don't take a lot from the fact that he left for HK and then travelled through Russia. He'd be a moron to subject himself to our justice system. His only real choice is to travel to countries which don't have strong extradition treaties with the U.S.

As for the point that he could have taken this to a U.S. newspaper, it's well established that Bradley Manning first attempted to go through numerous domestic news sources and no one would touch it. It wouldn't be shocking to find out that they passed on Snowden as well.

What about the fact that other countries, including potential terrorists, now know what the United States is doing to prevent terrorism? Doesn't this put us at risk?

Nope. He's a traitor (also a whackadoodle). He lied to get the clearance that he needed to get the job in the first place. He wasn't just average joe minding his own business doing his job and found something horrible, he went digging and found something and then high tailed it to China to tell them what he found.

I'm not willing to trade my constitutional right to privacy for a little security. The ability for low level employees to be able to read my emails, listen to my phone calls, etc., without a warrant is repugnant. I don't care if other countries know we're doing this and would frankly be surprised if a program like this would go unnoticed by foreign intelligence.

Part of his oath is to protect and defend the Constitution. He didn't go to China, he went to HK. There's a meaningful difference there. He didn't talk to the Chinese that you know of, he talked to the news media. I would agree that if he went to disclose the intimate workings of our intelligence to a foreign government and did not go to the media, that'd look pretty bad. By all accounts though, that's not what happened.

How do you know that he wasn't debriefed by the Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies? He's already made public to Chinese news sources that the U.S. is spying in and hacking into Chinese computer systems... Do you really think China will just let him waltz out of HK without extracting every bit of intel that they can from him? The Chinese and Russian governments are really going out of their way to accommodate Snowden even in the face of damaging relations to the U.S. so that leads me to believe that they believe it's worth it..and not for some BS "preserving democracy" excuse either. None of these countries Snowden is supposedly reaching out to have a decent track record when it comes to democracy or civil liberties.

How do you know he was? At this point, if he says he's not cooperating with Chinese and Russian intelligence, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If he really was doing this for their benefit, do you think he would have telegraphed it by first leaking everything (without getting too specific) to the Guardian? Or do you think he would have pocketed some massive amounts of cash and gone into hiding under the protection of one of those governments?

This guy gave up a really good life in the United States to a life where regardless of what country grants him asylum, he's going to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his days for someone who might plant evidence against him, make up phony charges as happened to Assange or just kill him.

And really, why do you think he's flown via countries which don't actively cooperate with the U.S.? Maybe because none of those countries have strong extradition relationships with the U.S., or in the case of Russia, might demand the request so 'ol Putin can thumb his nose at Washington?

And those depicting him as mentally unbalanced... that's pretty familiar territory for what we do to those who dissent, isn't it? They must be unbalanced. I recall a number of years ago some folks broke into a location to obtain psychological records of an individual who was facing charges for leaking papers which proved we had known for many years that the Vietnam War was a lost cause... personally discrediting these brave folks seems to be part of the playbook.

He has turned from a whistle blower to a defector. Exposing the government collecting US citizens internet/phone data is whistle blowing to support rights to privacy. Telling China sensitive information about the US hacking servers/systems turns shifts the focus from whistle blowing to divulging National Security information endangering US interests & information.

If he had stopped after the whistle blowing, perhaps "hero" -- but definitely not now.

He's a traitor and no better than the dirty bubble gum on the bottom of my shoe. I think a nice Predator strike should do the trick

I'm not willing to say full-out traitor yet, and I'm not willing to say hero, either. Somehow, my gut tells me that "pawn" comes closer to it.