Edward Snowden Recieves Award For Leak

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by BranKetra (48192 posts) -

It would be different if Russia were giving an award to Snowden. What do you think about this?

Edward Snowden, the man responsible for leaking top-secret intelligence is actually being honored by four former U.S. officials.

They traveled to Moscow, where Snowden has been hiding since August to give him the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence.

But Snowden is still wanted by the U.S. government.

Link

#2 Edited by iampenguin (223 posts) -

I think they should. They (Russia) is already on bad terms with the states for 'protecting' him. Not that Russia is to big on the idea of leaking information.

I think it's right. If you work somewhere where illegalities are happening and to bring it to the fore you yourself have to commit some then it is in the name of good. You're actively protecting what is good by doing so.

#3 Edited by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

The man should be honored.

#4 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28360 posts) -

yep he should be honored.

#5 Posted by ZEYAAM898 (1921 posts) -

Give him two more, he deserves it. The guy literally took a huge dive just to let people know where their money was going.

#6 Edited by Hexagon_777 (20034 posts) -
#7 Posted by OrkHammer007 (4751 posts) -

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

#8 Posted by Flubbbs (2975 posts) -

whistleblowers arent the bad guys here

#9 Posted by ferrari2001 (16821 posts) -

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

#10 Edited by OrkHammer007 (4751 posts) -

@OrkHammer007 said:

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

Snowden gave the information to the f***ing world, crippled our efforts at counterterrorism by exposing our methods to the people we were f***ing USING them on, and instigated a diplomatic clusterf*** with our allies. How, exactly, is THAT not "treason?"

#11 Edited by Solaryellow (464 posts) -

The government was spying on the PEOPLE. You know, THE PEOPLE. By the people, for the people. This guy gets lambasted for "spying" which revealed the spying done by America. Talk about being hypocritical. Our government believes it can do anything it wants and our leaders hate when someone pushes back.

#12 Posted by Flubbbs (2975 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:

@OrkHammer007 said:

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

Snowden gave the information to the f***ing world, crippled our efforts at counterterrorism by exposing our methods to the people we were f***ing USING them on, and instigated a diplomatic clusterf*** with our allies. How, exactly, is THAT not "treason?"

geez calm down bro.. im sure the NSA is still spying on your and infringing on your rights as we speak. dont get so butt hurt

#13 Posted by ferrari2001 (16821 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:

@OrkHammer007 said:

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

Snowden gave the information to the f***ing world, crippled our efforts at counterterrorism by exposing our methods to the people we were f***ing USING them on, and instigated a diplomatic clusterf*** with our allies. How, exactly, is THAT not "treason?"

The U.S. committed treason first and then hid it from it's own people. How else was he suppose to expose the shit they were doing. If he committed treason so be it. Our government is trash and someone has to hold them responsible.

#14 Posted by wis3boi (31122 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:

@OrkHammer007 said:

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

Snowden gave the information to the f***ing world, crippled our efforts at counterterrorism by exposing our methods to the people we were f***ing USING them on, and instigated a diplomatic clusterf*** with our allies. How, exactly, is THAT not "treason?"

Nice try NSA

#15 Posted by junglist101 (5457 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:

@OrkHammer007 said:

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

Snowden gave the information to the f***ing world, crippled our efforts at counterterrorism by exposing our methods to the people we were f***ing USING them on, and instigated a diplomatic clusterf*** with our allies. How, exactly, is THAT not "treason?"

Great job at repeating those sound bytes.

Our government is out of control and you and anyone else who rushes to defend them is an abject fool. Harsh words yes but I've had enough of you intellectual simpletons who can't see that our government has taken a big fat shit on the bill of rights and it's people like you sir, who are handing it to them when they are done to also wipe their ass with it.

#16 Posted by helwa1988 (2078 posts) -

maybe it is he conspiracy theorist in me. but i don't snowden is the hero people are making him out to be. i don't believe he leaked that information for the good of the people. i think he is working for another government. whether it is russia or not he is benefiting more than we think from this leak.

#17 Edited by VaguelyTagged (10129 posts) -

i don't support what the US government was up to but i don't believe Snowden's motives were truly altruistic either.

#18 Edited by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -

Good for them. He deserves the award and recognition of his efforts.

The NSA can suck my dick.

#19 Edited by OrkHammer007 (4751 posts) -

Gang up on me some more... accuse me of being an NSA defender... problem is:

A.) I'm not defending the NSA. I've been very vocal in the past about being against their spying, and hypocrisy of certain politicians who defend this bullshit (like that two-faced f*** Obama).

B.) The gov't can't commit treason against itself. If you want to blame anyone, it's the complacent morons who continually vote in those who allow the NSA to watch you 24/7.

(...and let's not kid ourselves here... I don't give a shit if they have the manpower to spy on everyone, they have the capability, and that can't be allowed in a free society)

That said... what Snowden did was treason. A whistleblower tells superiors about wrong-doing... he doesn't air it to the f***ing world. Not only that, he doesn't blackmail an entire government to keep his freedom, like Snowden did with the NOC lists on the laptops he smuggled.

He doesn't deserve a medal. He deserves a bullet to the head. It's a f***ing shame so many stupid people refuse to accept that.

#20 Edited by Toxic-Seahorse (4118 posts) -

That said... what Snowden did was treason. A whistleblower tells superiors about wrong-doing... he doesn't air it to the f***ing world. Not only that, he doesn't blackmail an entire government to keep his freedom, like Snowden did with the NOC lists on the laptops he smuggled.

He doesn't deserve a medal. He deserves a bullet to the head. It's a f***ing shame so many stupid people refuse to accept that.

Tell his superiors? They all knew this shit was going on. What the hell would that have done? Nothing. Airing it to the world was the best possible course of action. It embarrasses them and hopefully pressures them to change. In this case, it didn't, but it was the best shot he had. He deserves a bullet to the head for exposing government spying? In what world does that make sense? And if you are so against the government spying on us, why the hell are you bothered by him trying to "blackmail" them?

Does he deserve an award? Definitely not. but I don't think he should be killed either.

#21 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Too bad it's too late, and the machine is already taken over.

#22 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Gang up on me some more... accuse me of being an NSA defender... problem is:

A.) I'm not defending the NSA. I've been very vocal in the past about being against their spying, and hypocrisy of certain politicians who defend this bullshit (like that two-faced f*** Obama).

B.) The gov't can't commit treason against itself. If you want to blame anyone, it's the complacent morons who continually vote in those who allow the NSA to watch you 24/7.

(...and let's not kid ourselves here... I don't give a shit if they have the manpower to spy on everyone, they have the capability, and that can't be allowed in a free society)

That said... what Snowden did was treason. A whistleblower tells superiors about wrong-doing... he doesn't air it to the f***ing world. Not only that, he doesn't blackmail an entire government to keep his freedom, like Snowden did with the NOC lists on the laptops he smuggled.

He doesn't deserve a medal. He deserves a bullet to the head. It's a f***ing shame so many stupid people refuse to accept that.

His acts probably don't meet the requirements in the United States to classify as "treason", which can results in death. His actions did show a negative cognition towards the Government, but it didn't result in betrayal of the government. You would have to do something like torture US troops in Afghanistan, while being an American citizen, soldier, or ally of the government to get convicted of treason. Another way I could see being charged is by aiding an enemy of the government such as Saddam post-1990s.

Hell I guess Martin Luther King Jr should of been convicted of treason given he showed the American people the US constitution didn't hold true for the vast majority. I mean you tell your superiors or those with legal power, right?

#23 Posted by ad1x2 (5512 posts) -

Snowden is a hero to anybody who doesn't fully understand how intel collection works. People who keep claiming that he had a right to expose it because it somehow violates the Fourth Amendment seem to forget that the Supreme Court reviewed the programs and found them legal. Fact of the matter is the internet and telephones didn't exist in the 1700s and the government needs to be able to keep up with technology when it comes to dangers from outside the borders.

Another thing is even if you agree with the domestic programs being shown, it doesn't justify the overseas programs being exposed as well. Also, a lot of the people who are claiming the NSA programs violated the Fourth Amendment don't seem to be complaining that laws prohibiting felons, spouse beaters (Launtenberg Amendment), and the mentally ill from possessing firearms may violate the Second Amendment despite it not explicitly having those exceptions in the text.

#24 Edited by ad1x2 (5512 posts) -

Hell I guess Martin Luther King Jr should of been convicted of treason given he showed the American people the US constitution didn't hold true for the vast majority. I mean you tell your superiors or those with legal power, right?

You can't compare Snowden to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. because MLK didn't expose classified information or do anything else that could have potentially violate the Espionage Act of 1917. It was public knowledge that non-whites didn't have the same rights as whites and openly protesting that fact isn't illegal. Protesting is allowed under the First Amendment.

#25 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
@ad1x2 said:

Snowden is a hero to anybody who doesn't fully understand how intel collection works. People who keep claiming that he had a right to expose it because it somehow violates the Fourth Amendment seem to forget that the Supreme Court reviewed the programs and found them legal. Fact of the matter is the internet and telephones didn't exist in the 1700s and the government needs to be able to keep up with technology when it comes to dangers from outside the borders.

Another thing is even if you agree with the domestic programs being shown, it doesn't justify the overseas programs being exposed as well. Also, a lot of the people who are claiming the NSA programs violated the Fourth Amendment don't seem to be complaining that laws prohibiting felons, spouse beaters (Launtenberg Amendment), and the mentally ill from possessing firearms may violate the Second Amendment despite it not explicitly having those exceptions in the text.

That's a valid porint.

The state of Louisiana is debating that.

If you regulate the 2nd amendment by banning certain individuals it's no longer a right, but a privileged.

http://theadvocate.com/home/7320105-125/state-supreme-court-to-decide

#26 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@Fightingfan said:

Hell I guess Martin Luther King Jr should of been convicted of treason given he showed the American people the US constitution didn't hold true for the vast majority. I mean you tell your superiors or those with legal power, right?

You can't compare Snowden to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. because MLK didn't expose classified information or do anything else that could have potentially violate the Espionage Act of 1917. It was public knowledge that non-whites didn't have the same rights as whites and openly protesting that fact isn't illegal. Protesting is allowed under the First Amendment.

The US constitution didn't apply to blacks/hispanics/non-whites until about the 1970s across America(mainly the south).

#27 Edited by playmynutz (5981 posts) -

Just realized whatever Snowden leaked is useless to me and may as well be only useful to enemies

#28 Posted by ad1x2 (5512 posts) -

@Fightingfan: Certain rights may have been denied to non-whites but for the most part the Constitution did apply to them. The Thirteenth Amendment protected blacks from being made slaves again and the Fourteenth Amendment was so former slaves born on US soil can't be denied citizenship (although they may have reconsidered that one if they knew illegal immigrants would be taking advantage of the amendment over a century later).

#29 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

Shame there isn't more whistle blowers like him.

#30 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3794 posts) -

@OrkHammer007 said:

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

There was a court case way back in I think '94 where the supreme court ruled that government monitoring is ok with probably cause.

Nobody was betrayed, don't go all drama queen on us.

#31 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@Fightingfan: Certain rights may have been denied to non-whites but for the most part the Constitution did apply to them. The Thirteenth Amendment protected blacks from being made slaves again and the Fourteenth Amendment was so former slaves born on US soil can't be denied citizenship (although they may have reconsidered that one if they knew illegal immigrants would be taking advantage of the amendment over a century later).

Lets be real - if you tried to use your rights in the 1960s in the south and you were a black man prepare to get lynched, beaten, or your family raped. There was no due process.

While you're right it did apply; realistically it didn't. Even if you made it to court better hope the Judge wasn't racist.

#32 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@ferrari2001 said:

@OrkHammer007 said:

Rewarding treason... f***ing disgraceful.

It's a country of the people, for the people. Was the government not committing treason by spying illegally on it's citizens? The government betrayed it's citizens, that's treason in my books.

There was a court case way back in I think '94 where the supreme court ruled that government monitoring is ok with probably cause.

Nobody was betrayed, don't go all drama queen on us.

Probable cause in a home? I don't see that happening.

Here in Miami they tried to go door step to door step with dogs to arrest people with drugs, and the SC knocked Miami Dade police down. They claim if an officer is close enough to utilize a dog for drugs it's a violation of the 4th amendment - unless of course they have a search warrant.

Interesting how drug dogs are "Searches" in homes, but not roadways.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drug-sniffing-dogs-unconstitutional-search_n_2956079.html

#33 Posted by Solaryellow (464 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Snowden is a hero to anybody who doesn't fully understand how intel collection works. People who keep claiming that he had a right to expose it because it somehow violates the Fourth Amendment seem to forget that the Supreme Court reviewed the programs and found them legal. Fact of the matter is the internet and telephones didn't exist in the 1700s and the government needs to be able to keep up with technology when it comes to dangers from outside the borders.

The justices on the SCOTUS are politicians. People think they are judges but they rule on cases (9 out of 10 times) based on politics and outside influences. I don't believe violating the Constitution is acceptable regardless even if the intentions are good.

#34 Posted by PannicAtack (21021 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Fact of the matter is the internet and telephones didn't exist in the 1700s and the government needs to be able to keep up with technology when it comes to dangers from outside the borders.

Isn't that the exact same argument people use in regards to gun control?

#35 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Fact of the matter is the internet and telephones didn't exist in the 1700s and the government needs to be able to keep up with technology when it comes to dangers from outside the borders.

Isn't that the exact same argument people use in regards to gun control?

the internet didn't exist, nor magazines. Lets regulate the 1st amendment.

#36 Posted by ad1x2 (5512 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

Fact of the matter is the internet and telephones didn't exist in the 1700s and the government needs to be able to keep up with technology when it comes to dangers from outside the borders.

Isn't that the exact same argument people use in regards to gun control?

The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms "Shall not be infringed," not "Shall not be infringed unless you are a felon, spouse beater, or mentally ill." Nor does it say anything about possessing permits to buy a gun, or a 21 and over limit on handguns, or conducting background checks in general before selling a firearm.

Should we allow the mentally ill and felons to legally own full auto machine guns since anything less may "violate" their Second Amendment right to bear arms? Powerful machine guns didn't exist back then but who are we to say they can't have them despite their past since the Second Amendment doesn't say they can't.

I am all for guns but I'm going to use common sense. Somebody saying we should shut down the NSA because in their opinion they might be violating the Fourth Amendment (which they aren't) isn't looking at the big picture. The government can find out more about most people here looking at their Facebook than they would ever need the NSA for.

Even here on Gamespot some posters posted more than enough information about themselves than necessary on their GS profiles, to include their full name, full date of birth, and photo. That combined with search engines and any decent identity thief or stalker can find their address and start making their lives miserable.

#37 Posted by foxhound_fox (87754 posts) -

Wonder what Russia would do if he leaked their secrets. That award would disappear mighty quick.

#38 Posted by ad1x2 (5512 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@Fightingfan: Certain rights may have been denied to non-whites but for the most part the Constitution did apply to them. The Thirteenth Amendment protected blacks from being made slaves again and the Fourteenth Amendment was so former slaves born on US soil can't be denied citizenship (although they may have reconsidered that one if they knew illegal immigrants would be taking advantage of the amendment over a century later).

Lets be real - if you tried to use your rights in the 1960s in the south and you were a black man prepare to get lynched, beaten, or your family raped. There was no due process.

While you're right it did apply; realistically it didn't. Even if you made it to court better hope the Judge wasn't racist.

Going by that scenario, you could argue I don't have First Amendment rights because I can't walk into Blood territory wearing Crips colors without the risk of being jumped or even killed. Just because a few people who are racist are willing to break the law to push their opinion doesn't mean it is sanctioned by the government.

#39 Edited by Person0 (2944 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@PannicAtack said:

@ad1x2 said:

Fact of the matter is the internet and telephones didn't exist in the 1700s and the government needs to be able to keep up with technology when it comes to dangers from outside the borders.

Isn't that the exact same argument people use in regards to gun control?

The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms "Shall not be infringed," not "Shall not be infringed unless you are a felon, spouse beater, or mentally ill." Nor does it say anything about possessing permits to buy a gun, or a 21 and over limit on handguns, or conducting background checks in general before selling a firearm.

Should we allow the mentally ill and felons to legally own full auto machine guns since anything less may "violate" their Second Amendment right to bear arms? Powerful machine guns didn't exist back then but who are we to say they can't have them despite their past since the Second Amendment doesn't say they can't.

I am all for guns but I'm going to use common sense. Somebody saying we should shut down the NSA because in their opinion they might be violating the Fourth Amendment (which they aren't) isn't looking at the big picture. The government can find out more about most people here looking at their Facebook than they would ever need the NSA for.

Even here on Gamespot some posters posted more than enough information about themselves than necessary on their GS profiles, to include their full name, full date of birth, and photo. That combined with search engines and any decent identity thief or stalker can find their address and start making their lives miserable.

There are always limits, you can't go yell fire in a theater.

#40 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

i don't support what the US government was up to but i don't believe Snowden's motives were truly altruistic either.

Pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

#41 Edited by ad1x2 (5512 posts) -

@Person0 said:

There are always limits, you can't go yell fire in a theater.

Did I ever say you can? In all honesty, people in the past have tried to argue that arresting people for yelling fire in a theater or bomb in an airport violates their rights. In other words, they feel that their right to be an idiot is more important than the government's right to prevent you from inciting a panic that may become fatal to some.

#42 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@ad1x2 said:

@Person0 said:

There are always limits, you can't go yell fire in a theater.

Did I ever say you can? In all honesty, people in the past have tried to argue that arresting people for yelling fire in a theater or bomb in an airport violates their rights. In other words, they feel that their right to be an idiot is more important than the government's right to prevent you from inciting a panic that may become fatal to some.

Such people have no basic understand of responsibility and the social contract. They focus entirely on the rights and none of the responsibilities that go with those rights.

#43 Edited by destinhpark (4700 posts) -

Dude, this guy deserves the recognition and honors. He really just wanted to help out our country straight-up, no matter what he had to do. If anyone disagrees, fine, but I think this man should be respected whole-heartedly. What he did was brutally honest in one of the best ways imaginable.