Holding...

To answer your first concern...

Yes, tons of oversight by officials (elected and appointed) who had no obligation to hear concerns of those involved in the data collection process about the legality of the process, and who never would have allowed those concerns to go public.  That is not "oversight" in my eyes... that is simply more people in on the secret.

As I have stated in the past, I am becoming more and more concerned that the Patriot Act is the worst piece of legislation ever to have altered the face of our government.  It literally makes New Deal look like child's play when seen as a government-growing effort.  Furthermore, I question where in the Constitution it says people like Obama, Bush, Cheney, Feinstein and Biden get to "interpret" the scope of their authority.  It is clearly defined, and limited, and it isn't up to them to define its limits.

To answer your second...

No, I'm not justifying the means of his releasing the info.  I'm saying there was no other alternative means by which he could have gotten his concerns into the public forum, which mitigates the offense because those that set up the rules did so in a manner that kept us (the People) entirely out of the loop.

You broke Snowden's leaks into three categories.  One you were okay with, one you were ambivalent towards, and one was treason in your eyes.  I feel all three are symptoms of the same disease... as, I'm sure, do you.  We simply feel those symptoms differently as individuals.

If you want to discuss the specific nature of the material concerning foreign intelligence, we can discuss that.  As I said, his release was done in the manner that it was because he had no legitimate recourse to take internally.  It had been tried no fewer than three times, and all three whistle-blowers were fired, harassed and even imprisoned for following "proper channels" to get their concerns reviewed by higher authority.

In fact, I want to discuss it more...

I have stated that I agree with Obama's determination that the War on Terror is unachievable, unsustainable and completely unwinable (is that a word?  am I simply spelling it wrong?).  That being said, I (as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of these United States) have a problem with my tax dollars being spent on the government efforts to spy on signatory allies and their elected leaders.  I have a problem with the means by which we conduct intelligence gathering operations across the globe being utterly without any sort of rational public oversight or accountability.  And if it takes a man like Snowden to shake the monkeys out of the trees by breaking some rules... well, we have a long and respected tradition in this country of good people doing just that.  Seeing rules and laws that are unjust, unethical or illegal and ignoring them or fighting them outright.  That is what Dr. King did.  That is what Rosa Parks did.  That is what Harriet Tubmen did.  That's what the Sons of Liberty did.  That is what Henry Thoreau did.

The crime here is that we, the People, are responsible for the actions of our government because we, the People, put that government there.  We cannot do that responsibly when we do not know what that government is doing in our name.  The crime is that we have elected a President that ran on the promise of transparency in government... and it takes a young man's breaking of law to show us what is really happening.  And if our ability to collect info or data in places like Afghanistan or South Africa suffer as a result of that, then perhaps we need to re-examine why we are there at all.  Tough for us to try to police the world when we can't even keep our own affairs in order, isn't it?

Hold on a second...

With the domestic data collection, we are in agreeance. But two things... One, there was tons of oversight. The POTUS and the the leaders of congress all knew this was occurring and the NSA director. This was their interpretation of the Patriot Act. What's frightening here isn't that they went outside the scope of their mandate domestically, it's that everyone in charge agreed this was in fact part of their mandate. Secondly, are you justifying his release of foreign Intelligence gathering methods and programs? That IS a legitimate part of the NSA mandate.

Treason

F Ryan asks:  "I wonder Titus, in light of this, are you still willing to award him the greatest hero since 1913 award?"

In all honesty, perhaps not "greatest" hero status... but "patriot" status at least.  It is tough to place him in the same list as the names you gave... but I'll get back to that in a second.

First of all, I want to address this:

F Ryan says:  "I think he did us a great favor in alerting us to the gross overreach of our own government. He could have stopped there. And had he, I would defend him as a brave civil liberties warrior, worthy of praise. But he didn't. He went further. And at that moment he became guilty of treason, in my eyes."

Treason.  Really?  This is worth looking into.

As I understand the definition of "treason", it is "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies".  The word "traitor" (one who commits treason) comes from the Latin traditor, or "one whom delivers"... and it is long considered the highest crime one could commit.  Our western society holds traitors amongst its most hated members... Brutus, John Wilkes Booth and the four others convicted of killing Lincoln, Benedict Arnold.  My God, the very deepest level of Hell is reserved for (and named after) the greatest traitor of them all:  Judas Iscariot.

No, I don't think what he did qualifies him as a "traitor".  He blew a whistle that alerted the public to gross over-reach by the government, in all three areas that you defined... and in all three areas there has proven to be no adequate oversight by any governmental or non-governmental element... thus making the entire business illegal and beyond the scope of legitimate authority.

Had he circumvented or avoided some sort of legitimate means of bringing the questionable conduct and activity to light, then I'd sing a different tune... but there were no alternative means for him to follow that would have availed him at all.  One cannot say its okay to hide some illegal activity, but not all of it.  It was all illegal, it is all unconstitutional, and it is all indefensible in my eyes because it never, at any point, had any legitimate oversight or stop-gaps that would or could be employed... EVER.

And as long as we are throwing the label of traitor around... do you know who else was called "traitor" to their country?

George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and everyone else that signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th 1776, officially separating Great Britain with the new "United States of America".  All those men did was place their individual principals and ethics above their personal safety and material well-being.  Can you say with honest belief that Snowden did less?

"snowed-in"

I couldn't resist...

You don't need much coffee after this statement: "He [Edward Snowden] should be hanged by his neck until dead!" While that may sound more like a sentencing judge in a Clint Eastwood movie, those are in fact the words of former CIA director James Woolsey, on FOX News. Now before I get into this I just want to make two quick observations. First, Anytime Diane Feinstein and Republican leaders in both the Senate and House are on television agreeing, you can be sure we are getting screwed. Secondly, had Snowden blew the lid off of a "scandal" within Baine Capital or other private firm the president would be enjoying another beer summit with him right now. The man would have been royalty for time and all eternity within this same crowd and by the same CIC that now chastises him.

So... what do I think? Snowden is a complicated case to discuss with people, even with those informed on the subject, because they are often talking past each other about what he did. What did he do? Essentially he leaked three key elements of the our national security's signal intelligence operations. They are as follows:

1.) Domestic spying. The "meta-data" collection of every cell call and email on every man, woman and child within the United States. What they claim is they only record the phone numbers (both to and from), the duration of the call, and time/date. They have repeatedly claimed they do not store the content. Email is a little different. Their "code" allows them to store all the pedigree information as with the phone intercepts and the content, but only as unintelligible code. It doesn't get translated, let alone read, into the real words of the communication unless a technician proactively goes and retrieves it. This is blatantly unconstitutional. In fact it is reminiscent of the British "General Warrants." As the Rebel cause grew in sentiment the Red Coats would get a warrant issued for say, all of South Boston, and just go on a scavenger hunt for anything incriminating. I am diametrically opposed to this collection, and National Intelligence Director James Clapper committed perjury when he testified before congress that this was in fact not happening. Had this whole scenario played out under Bush, the Left would be apoplectic.

2.) Eavesdropping on foreign leaders. The Angela Merkel incident(s) are the most dramatic of these. This is the least controversial aspect of the Snowden leaks among the American public (at least so far as I can read my fellow Americans). I think we all kind of assume that everybody is snooping on everyone else (in terms of world leaders). I mean there's a reason that when PM Cameron comes to New York that MI6 sweeps his quarters and car, diligently. And that's one of our two closest allies (although Israel may not "count" to this president).

3.) Foreign Intelligence gathering. The documents he gave the Washington Post and UK's The Guardian (and they were his first and primary dump source) didn't just include domestic operations. They included information on email interception, mobile calls, and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan's Northwest territories. Other documents revealed programs meant to test the loyalties of CIA operatives, in Pakistan; and a program meant to intercept emails in and out of Iran. And what's worse, he almost certainly had access to after action reports on Chinese, Russian, and Iranian attempts to nefariously collect signal intelligence on the US, in particular our foreign assets, yet he hasn't brought anything to light except those documents and programs that cast the US and her allies (most notably the British Intel collaboration) as villains. Then on top of that he seeks refuge first with China, then Russia. When Daniel Ellisberg (whom compared Snowden to himself in a favorable light) released the Pentagon papers, he didn't then flee to our "frenemies." In a Snowden address to presumably cyber security specialists in Moscow (the audience wasn't exactly wearing name tags) that made its' way on to the web just last week, Snowden said quote, "These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador, have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful." I wonder Titus, in light of this, are you still willing to award him the greatest hero since 1913 award? I'm not. I mean, is he more patriotic and heroic than Sgt York? Audie Murphy? Dick Winters? Chris Kyle? Marcus Latrell? No chance. However, Times Man of the Year (I'll never call it "Person" of the year) is certainly appropriate. But based solely on "impact" in 2013, not virtuous merit.

So what it comes down to is which Snowden are you exalting? Which one are you condemning? The guy who woke America up to clear Constitutional violations, or the guy who revealed sources and methods (or at least methods) to our enemies and praised such bastions of human rights as Venezuela? The NY Times editorial board issued a case for clemency in this week's paper. There have been a slew of dueling editorials for and against this. Very few include all three of what I have described above. They are all talking about their version of Snowden, based on what is most important to them

My solution is simple. For domestic surveillance abuses (and they are wide and vast) issue him official whistle blower status, and thank him. And after the ceremony the FBI can take him into custody for my number three above. I think he did us a great favor in alerting us to the gross overreach of our own government. He could have stopped there. And had he, I would defend him as a brave civil liberties warrior, worthy of praise. But he didn't. He went further. And at that moment he became guilty of treason, in my eyes.

By the way, this may all be a moot point soon anyway. The deputy director of the NSA, and the man charged with containing the Snowden leak, said on 60 Minutes that he is willing to offer clemency (after first qualifying it with the fact that this isn't up to him) in exchange for Snowden not leaking another word and handing over all of his documentation. I think that's Obama's easiest out. He can pacify the civil liberty advocates within his own party (and the Tea Party to a certain extent), and can still maintain National Security street cred with the GOP leadership. Whom, to quickly address your last post, I have one word for if they don't immediately shape up - Whigs. The original Republican Party went from six congressman to owning the White House (in Abe Lincoln) in a quick eight years... so just watch it Boehner, we've had about enough of this joke of a budget deal and not-so-grand compromise tact, both of which amount to little more than "socialism light."

Furthermore...

So, I recently read that a prominent member of Senator and Chairperson of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence (the Legislative Branch's highest and most secretive committee) Diane Feinstein's staff stated that the ban on extended magazines for assault-style weapons is "do-able" because once the old, pre-ban magazines are used up, they won't be able to be replaced and will be thrown away.  I can't cite the article, and I can't name the staffer, but if this is true, then Sen. Feinstein is surrounding herself with even dumber people than I would have imagined.

Now, this is the woman that has stood up and said that the NSA's illegal spying on ALL US citizens is just and needed to combat the threat of future terrorist violence against America.  This is the woman that fought tooth-and-nail to keep past weapons bans in place during the Bush administrations.  More distressing, this is the woman (and the sort of people that will replace her when she is gone) that we are trusting our future to, our personal and private information with now, and whom we voted for to protect our rights and freedoms in the past.

As I said earlier, I'm rapidly becoming convinced that the propaganda that is pouring forth from D.C. is so replete with lies and falsehoods that nothing we have been told over the last twenty-odd years can be trusted at all.

Every fact, figure and tiniest bit of evidence that has been delivered up to convince us that the actions of the government are justified are now 100% in doubt... even by their own admissions.  Take this list for example...

From the National Safety Council:

– You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

– You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

– You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

– You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

– You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

– You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

Does this bring it home, or what?  I've been thinking about this list for the better part of a year... and I am still amazed that it hasn't made a bigger splash than it has.  We all know that flying is the safest means of travel there is... which is 11,000 times more dangerous to me than a terrorist attack... yet my personal freedoms and privacy are thrown away more and more every day to protect me from a terrorist attack?  Even my ability to travel in a timely and convenient manner have been sacrificed to "security" at the airport, the bus depot and the train station.  Even the very police that are employed to protect me are a greater threat to me than a terrorist!  Eight times greater!!!  How can this be, and the country is still silent to the lies that we are still being told on a daily basis?

What is it going to take to fix this?  I am struggling to see a way out of this mess... and I see nothing but more of the same.

A comment, long over due...

Since the President gave his speech stating that the War on Terror can never be won, and in which he defended his foreign policy to date, I have struggled with how best to articulate my disappointment in my government.

On that day in May (the day before my birthday, in fact), the President made perfectly clear that our current system of government no longer works at all.

Obama won the election based on arguments that previous administrations had failed to follow just, ethical or moral choices in determining the course of US foreign policy since 1999, but in that speech at the National Defense University he defended very nearly all that had been done prior to his coming to office in an attempt to defend what he had done in office since 2008.  To put it very plainly... what was good for the goose is just fine for this gander.

Since the Snowden leaks have come to light, the depth of the government's disregard for the sovereignty of the citizens of this nation has never been more clear.  I am more and more convinced... every day, in fact... that Edward Snowden may very well be the greatest individual hero this country has had in the last 100 years.  As much as I love Pope Francis... nothing Pope Francis has done to date comes even close to the impact Snowden has had on the question of individual rights and freedoms for 350 million people across this country, and because of this I think he should have been Time's Person of the Year 2013.

Snowden's gift to America was the debate that he spawned.  Obama ran on the promise of transparency in government... but nothing (and I mean NOTHING) any President has done since Johnson has shown just how invasive our government has become, and how callous it is towards our most fundamental freedoms and rights as Snowden did with those leaks.  Watergate is peanuts in comparison.

I'm curious about what F Ryan thinks on this.  The leaks were particularly damning (in my opinion) to both the last GOP Presidents, and showed (or started) some serious questions about St. Ron Reagan's choices in the realm of domestic surveillance.  We now have two Federal judges that have weighed in on this: one saying he was a hero and the government has acted (and is acting) illegally, while another defends the government's actions as legal and necessary.

What say you, my friend?

Al Gore lied...

10 inches of snow, wind chills down to -20 degrees... until Monday!?!?! Seriously?

They are naming winter storms now... and this one seems aptly named:  Hercules.

Or is it "Jerk-ules"?  Hehe

Somebody call IXII!