Edward Snowden

Some Democrats Deserve Praise for NSA and Snowden Stances. Hillary Clinton, Not So Much.

Clinton says Snowden should 'face the music'

|

CNN

The Democratic presidential candidates gave sensible answers on questions relating to NSA spying, the Patriot Act, and the purported crimes of Edward Snowden. The only notable exception was frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders and Jim Webb gave strong reminders that most of the Democrats are better than most of the Republicans on civil liberties. When asked whether the NSA's spying program should be shut down, Sanders responded affirmatively. Webb explained that all Americans should be concerned about the federal government's surveillance programs, which violate the Fourth Amendment. And the candidates broadly agreed that Edward Snowden—who leaked details of NSA surveillance to the press—provided a service to his country that should offset any criminal charges he faces.

Clinton, on the other hand, defended voting for the Patriot Act. "I think it was necessary to make sure we were able, after 9/11, to put in place the security that we needed," she said.

Clinton was also less vastly less appreciative of Snowden, saying that he broke the law and stole important information. "I don't think he should be brought home without facing the music," she said.

In contrast, libertarian leaning Republican Sen. Rand Paul has said that if Snowden is to be punished, he should share a cell with James Clapper, the head of the NSA.

NEXT: Reason Tweets the First Democratic Debate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cloth wiping server cunt thinks Snowden should be punished? Oh, that’s rich…

    1. Well, Snowden or someone like him might expose more ‘fake’ scandals. Can’t have that, now can we?

  2. “The Democratic presidential candidates gave sensible answers on questions relating to NSA spying, the Patriot Act, and the purported crimes of Edward Snowden.”

    You’ll forgive me some cynicism:
    “As a candidate, Obama vowed so many times that he would shutter the prison he called a recruitment tool for terrorists that he himself even noted how often he’s promised to do so, in an interview with Steve Kroft shortly after he was elected.”
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..d=16698768

    1. Kind of a shame Squaw Speaks from Both Sides of Mouth wasn’t there, too.

  3. Hilary should face the music.

    1. Is turd still claiming she hasn’t done anything wrong? I’ve lost track of his waffling. Commie kid is laughing at her destroying evidence and tossing classified material out on the street; hey, tu quoque!!

      1. Fake scandal.

  4. The only music Snowden should face is receiving his medal.

  5. “most of the Democrats are better than most of the Republicans on civil liberties”

    Oh sure, sure…. except for little things like not allowing people to defend their own lives, their utter contempt for free speech, the interpretation of “religious freedom” as Freedom From Religion, and most of all, their conviction that “Your Stuff is Our Stuff”, and that property belongs to “the People” (aka the State) first and foremost…

    ..oh, yeah the Democrats are just *super-dooper-awsomesauce* when it comes to civil liberties.

    Like…. uh…. lets see…..

    Oh! they let that Bradley Manning be a woman in prison! that was really cool of them. I’m sure there’s some other stuff too, stuff which has nothing to do with how the NSA’s surveillance of citizens was vastly expanded under a Democratic administration…. gee, someone help me out. It probably involves gays?

    1. I guess it depends on which are the civil liberties, & which the uncivil. Was there ever a definition that made sense making that distinction, & did it correspond to any degree w today’s conception of civil libs?

    2. Are you defending the Republican position on civil liberties?

      Being “better” than shitbags is hardly an endorsement. They are almost equally horrid, but on different issues.

      Remember our discussion on Yokeltarians?

      1. If you plan to make a case that republicans are worse on speech, self-defense, property rights, and religion, please go ahead.

        re: yokeltarians – What I recall is that you seemed to believe that anyone who suggested “Non-interventionism” had fundamental problems that made it unworkable as a foreign policy theory should be labeled one, and I told you that seemed stupid. Has something changed?

        1. If you plan to make a case that republicans are worse on speech, self-defense, property rights, and religion, please go ahead.

          No, I make the case that, on the whole, Rs and Ds are nearly equally egregious on civil liberties. Who is worse is arguable. That someone would bother to take offense at the cited remark, I find telling.

          What I recall is that you seemed to believe that anyone who suggested “Non-interventionism” had fundamental problems that made it unworkable as a foreign policy theory should be labeled one, and I told you that seemed stupid. Has something changed?

          What I recall is that I implied you were a borderline Yokeltarian because your interventionist beliefs fall well outside libertarian philosophy and squarely within Republican ideology.

          And now, IMHO, you appear to be defending Republicans on civil liberties.

          So, I ask again, are you defending the Republican position on civil liberties or not?

          1. You havent’ even said what these “Republican Positions” are, despite specifically being asked for you to clarify what you saw as ‘offsetting’ the examples i gave.

            re: “your interventionist beliefs”

            Please to show me an example of where i advanced “interventionist” beliefs,

            While you’re at it, please define “interventionism” in some way that isn’t…. “everything NOT “Non-interventionism!

            “” That someone would bother to take offense at the cited remark, I find telling.”

            What are you talking about? What remark, and who got “offended”?

            1. And still no answer to the question.

              despite specifically being asked for you to clarify what you saw as ‘offsetting’ the examples i gave.

              That’s an outright fabrication. You asked me if I planned to make the case that …

              republicans are worse on speech, self-defense, property rights, and religion

              I have no intention of arguing that. AND you DID NOT specifically ask me to provide offsetting examples.

              You havent’ even said what these “Republican Positions” are

              Drugs, the war on drugs, spying on Americans in direct violation of 4A, attempting to justify blatant violations of the equal protection clause…and I could go on, but I won’t. So again, for the third time, are you really arguing that Republicans hold the high ground on civil liberties or did your original comment just sound that way to me? Perhaps my preconceived notions of your biases just made me take it that way? Was that it?

              Please to show me an example of where i advanced “interventionist” beliefs,

              Please, Gilmore, I’m not playing this game with you. If you’re not a non-interventionist then you’re an interventionist.

              What remark

              Oh, the one you based your original comment on…

              “most of the Democrats are better than most of the Republicans on civil liberties”

              1. ” If you’re not a non-interventionist then you’re an interventionist.'”

                and given that “non-interventionism” doesn’t actually exist as any coherent foreign policy theory , its antithesis remains equally undefined. which is why i asked you to be specific.

                re: the Drug War…

                As far as i can tell both parties have equally bad track records in the prosecution of the drug war, and i fail to see how its supposed to make up for the contempt that lefties routinely show for the Bill of Rights.

                Robby says the dems are “better” on civil liberties.

                I point out that they’re very much worse in very important areas. (e.g. “protection of Life, Free Speech, Property rights”)

                You get huffy and say, “Drug War”, which is supposed to make everyone the same, apparently

                I’m not sure much has been learned.

                1. Well, it’s been learned that Gilmore won’t answer the question.

                  Goodnight.

                  1. Your question was never articulated. You said, “Defend Republican Policy”. the only example you ever gave was the drug war,

                    If you want a clear statement to munch on (though you don’t seem to deliver the goods yourself here at all, despite prodding) =

                    I think “the Right” has a far better track record of support for basic civil liberties than the Left. Both parties commit flagrant violations at different points, but usually as a cooperative effort.

                    Where they differ is in their core political support for the bill of rights. I think the GOPs current squishyness on the 4th (via the NSA), while deplorable, is a sideshow compared to way the Dems treat the most basic freedoms with uttter contempt. While the GOP might want their surveillance and torture, both remain compartmentalized in a security state (so far) restrained by existing law. Not so with the way Dems want to criminalize speech, or use the force of the state to compel association, or maximize the ability to seize property sans due process.

                    1. I think “the Right” has a far better track record of support for basic civil liberties than the Left.

                      Well, there it is. Finally. Only needed to ask 4 times.

                      So, we’ve established you as an interventionist and you believe Republicans are better on civil liberties than the Democrats. Not just better…”far better”.

                      In the future, don’t get your nose outta joint when you get lumped with the Yokels.

                      I think the GOPs current squishyness on the 4th (via the NSA), while deplorable, is a sideshow compared to way the Dems treat the most basic freedoms with uttter contempt. While the GOP might want their surveillance and torture, both remain compartmentalized in a security state (so far) restrained by existing law.

                      Squishiness?
                      Compartmentalized?
                      Sideshow?

                      How is the seizure of another’s (no, another’s is not the right word… literally everyone’s) property without consent or a court order and then telling the owner, again without a court order, that disclosure of the seizure is punishable by law compartmentalized?

                      The Democrats may openly call for policies that infringe upon constitutional rights, but the Republicans have actually, no shit, implemented them.

          2. re: “your interventionist beliefs fall well outside libertarian philosophy ‘

            People with better credentials than you or I have in the past disputed whether “… Libertarianism qua Libertarianism says anything about foreign policy at all” =

            “Because Libertarianism is essentially a philosophy of individual rights, I doubt it says much about what policies either individuals or collective institutions ought to pursue other than that they should not violate the rights of individuals in pursuing them….”

            … this point is furthered here, where he concludes (in my view, correctly) =

            “Many libertarians are “noninterventionists” who oppose almost any military [action] on the ground that the unintended consequences of such actions are likely to be terrible, as indeed they often are… this type of noninterventionism, whether right or wrong, does not follow from Libertarian principles as some of its adherents apparently assume. It is more a pragmatic judgment of the sorts of rightful actions that will or will not yield good consequences. …If it is to be warranted on any sort of Libertarian grounds, it must be prudentially as a doctrine that indirectly leads better to the protection of rights than alternative policies… “

            1. People with better credentials than you or I have in the past disputed whether “… Libertarianism qua Libertarianism says anything about foreign policy at all” =

              So, an appeal to authority?

              “Because Libertarianism is essentially a philosophy of individual rights, I doubt it says much about what policies either individuals or collective institutions ought to pursue other than that they should not violate the rights of individuals in pursuing them….”

              Um…horseshit.

              Libertarianism is about not initiating aggression.

              “Many libertarians are “noninterventionists” who oppose almost any military [action] on the ground that the unintended consequences of such actions are likely to be terrible, as indeed they often are… this type of noninterventionism, whether right or wrong, does not follow from Libertarian principles as some of its adherents apparently assume.

              Again, horseshit.

              The libertarian principle is the NAP. It applies to nations as well as individuals. If you are aggressed upon, you are perfectly justified in retaliating. But…not until.

              1. “. It applies to nations as well as individuals.’

                Maybe you should read the 2nd link where the guy points out the problems with that assumption.

                Your stamping your foot and insisting things isn’t an argument.

                1. Maybe you should read the 2nd link where the guy points out the problems with that assumption.

                  Yeah, just read the whole thing. It doesn’t make the point you claim as he argues non-interventionism doesn’t align with libertarian principle, without ONCE addressing the NAP. You don’t initiate aggression. You don’t do it on a personal level and you don’t do it on a collective level. If you do, expect retaliation.

                  …well, the non-existent theory of “Non-Interventionism” we’re still waiting for

                  Are you really claiming that because no one actually practices a theory that the theory doesn’t exist? Libertarianism doesn’t exist because there are currently no examples of it?

                  Non-interventionism is about as simple as simple gets. Don’t initiate aggression. It doesn’t get any more libertarian than that. Leave people alone until they actually fuck with someone.

              2. “So, an appeal to authority?’

                I was pointing out that Cato scholars dispute things you seem to be arguing are 100% self-evident.

                it would be an appeal to authority if I’d claimed there were one-correct-view and that view is correct because Cato is more Libertarian than….

                …well, the non-existent theory of “Non-Interventionism” we’re still waiting for

                1. 1. Nearly any libertarian would agree that you have the right under the NAP not only to use violence against those who initiate it against yourself, but also against those who initiate violence against others

                  2. Many would agree that you have the right under the NAP not only to defensive but retributive violence. If somebody tries to murder you and escapes, you don’t have to play nice the next time you see them, even if they aren’t attacking you

                  3. Wars are typically between states, not nations

                  4. The initiation of violence is part of what sets a state apart from other organizations

                  QED, all violence against states (including war) is legitimate under the NAP

  6. Robert|10.14.15 @ 12:18AM|#
    “I guess it depends on which are the civil liberties, & which the uncivil”

    Nice.
    +1 to you and G.

  7. Snowden broke the law by removing classified information from it’s source, according to Clinton.

    Clinton was fully within the law by removing classified from it’s source, according to Clinton.

    1. I know right. Typical politician answers. Everyone’s sorry when they got caught, and Hillary is doing everything she can to deflect blame so that everyone stops talking about this legitimate concern.

      I bet if Snowden had known about her server he probably would have checked into it for us. We need more guys like him keeping dangerous folks like her in check.

      Now as it turns out she had vulnerable software that low-level hackers can get into, on her server. The lol’s just keep coming.

  8. For Hillary to say that is the height of hypocrisy.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.