Two things to point out in this. Ron Paul was the Libertarian Presidential nominee in 1988 and Rand Paul has stated that he's not a libertarian. Not only that, there are Democrats who claim to be Libertarian (Brian Schweitzer). Thus, the political spectrum stretches across various platforms, not just right leaning ones. Thomas Andrews Drake tried that route and he went through hell because of it. The assumption that this legal route is all or nothing isn't working anymore. Thus, a better route for these folks to do is absolutely necessary.
Again, it would have had to be proven that his direct intention was to aid the enemy... It doesn't matter what anything thinks could've happened...
God help anyone who exposes the NSA. I am surprised that Snowden is still alive, TBH. I would have thought that the NSA would have worked out some sort of sick back door deal with Russia where NSA whacks someone in USA that Russia wants dead and they whack Snowden for the NSA.
No, MLK was boycotting civil rights issues. Thus, it was a morality question for him. In which, he wrote that quote (Apart of a letter) during his time in Birmingham jail for demonstrating without a permit.
There aren't venues or I would know them. You report violations to your next chain of command. That's telling the fox that the hens are being eaten by foxes. There are no ways to report violations outside of telling your superior. And that's assuming your superior even has an equal need-to-know. Otherwise you cannot even share the details and can only talk in broad terms. There are no external groups to audit security breaches in USA.
The intent should be easy. He intended to put it on the internet because everyone, including the enemy, could see it. It is dangerous thinking to claim good intentions. That opens the road for people like Snowden and others who THINK THEY KNOW BETTER .
So where is the uproar about Drake and his leaks? You want someone to go the legal route and have their life destroyed while really not getting any bit of information that Drake truly wanted to release to the public. Thus, Snowden took the illegal route and got the information out to the public. Again, you want to stand on that same principle, what I'm saying is if there was a valid, legal route for that information to be brought to light, the buck would've stopped at Drake and there wouldn't have been an Edward Snowden.
You can't convict someone on an assumption... - - - Updated - - - The route is there, but, it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, I'm sure...
I propose that an Espionage Protection Agency be setup, that's away from politics, and should be used in order to determine if the person who wants to leak important information should be heard in the public eye. As it stands right now, folks lives are being destroyed for doing what they believe is their moral responsibility to being an American citizen, Drake is the epitome of that example. Let me re-iterate, I absolutely agree that the routes Manning & Snowden took were wrong. At no point am I defending what they did. What I am against is the fact that neither one of them had any legal means to bring that information to the public. Thus, if something was setup, granting them full amnesty, Manning wouldn't be in jail & Snowden wouldn't be sitting in the Moscow airport.
I don't know much about his kid, but Ron Paul is a moron. Some of his views are not only idiotic, but offensive to me. I am glad he is a never-was. He would have done more damage than good if he ever got to touch anything of value. Sure did like listening to Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray though. I like what they had to say. But of course the LP is irrelevant and I knew that going in when I picked that party on my voter registration form so long ago.
You go over your superior's head, to the next person up that can be privy to said information... Again, if you had the clearances, you know this... It works like any other chain of command...
No. http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/01/13/bradley-manning-investigator-is-also-justice-dept-lawyer/ You keep insisting that there are protections in place for intel whistleblowers. There is none. This has been done over and over again. In order to inform congress and the people, whistleblowers must expect to be deprived of life or liberty. They must become martyrs. You are aware that these same forces are also raping the press, right?
Violating a law by protesting is drastically different than leaking classified info... - - - Updated - - - Um, I said that there are avenues to report violations... And there are...
As much, then if Drake would've been given an avenue to get the NSA information out to the public, Snowden wouldn't have mattered. That's the point I'm getting at, that's what everyone should be fighting for, not prosecuting these individuals. That's why I'm torn on these situations. I neither support nor oppose their actions. Since this is the case, all I'm saying is give these folks a way to bring it into the public's eye and be done with these issues.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. And that's fine. Snowden had nowhere to go. He did the right thing.
No, it doesn't. If it helps the enemy, it is criminal. I am trying to stop this kind of thinking. I liked that Ellsburg leaked the papers. It didn't help the enemy and it certainly helped us anti-war activists. But I still believed that it was right to bring him up on charges because he committed a crime. He only got off because of Nixon's admin thuggery. People should not be allowed to release classify data and expect no charges because they THINK that they did the right thing.
OK... If you say so... I say you're bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting, but, all of that doesn't matter... If you had a clearance in the military, you know good & hell well that there are ways to report violations... But.........
We aren't talking about filing a grievance on someone because they are always casually brushing the secretary. This is "The NSA is violating the constitution." Their superiors know. All that happens for "letting them know" is that you lose your career... and are threatened with prison for talking about it.
I don't really care how it's done. The government works for us, they have no reason to be hiding anything from the taxpayer, anyway. Why prosecute the whistleblower and not the officials in the government, real criminals?
Or, prosecute both, since they're both breaking the law... - - - Updated - - - There are ways to go about it, I assure you...
