Interesting poll: Freedom -vs- Security

[djAdvocate]

this one has shifted FOURTY THREE points, from -38 to +5. 

Americans now think that government is invasive in the terror war.  good news for libertarians like me:

www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1919

July 10, 2013 - U.S. Voters Say Snowden Is Whistle-Blower, Not Traitor, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Big Shift On Civil Liberties vs. Counter-Terrorism
PDF format

American voters say 55 - 34 percent that Edward Snowden is a whistle-blower, rather than a traitor, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

In a massive shift in attitudes, voters say 45 - 40 percent the government's anti-terrorism efforts go too far restricting civil liberties, a reversal from a January 14, 2010, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University when voters said 63 - 25 percent that such activities didn't go far enough to adequately protect the country.

Almost every party, gender, income, education, age and income group regards Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than a traitor. The lone exception is black voters, with 43 percent calling him a traitor and 42 percent calling him a whistle-blower.

There is a gender gap on counter-terrorism efforts as men say 54 - 34 percent they have gone too far and women say 47 - 36 percent they have not gone far enough. There is little difference among Democrats and Republicans who are about evenly divided. Independent voters say 49 - 36 percent that counter-terrorism measures have gone too far.

Some of the largest growth in those concerned about the threat to civil liberties is among men and Republicans, groups historically more likely to be supportive of governmental anti- terrorism efforts.

"The massive swing in public opinion about civil liberties and governmental anti- terrorism efforts, and the public view that Edward Snowden is more whistle-blower than traitor are the public reaction and apparent shock at the extent to which the government has gone in trying to prevent future terrorist incidents," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

[djAdvocate]

i was most interested in the headline on this one: that people are now more concerned about liberty than security in the terror war.

it's about f-ing time.

but there is a second level part that is fascinating, and a third one.

the second level one is how far out of touch with their constituents the political establishment is about Snowden.  most Americans view him as a whistleblower.  most politicians view him as a traitor.  that is interesting, and i think quite significant.

the third level one is that independents are far more concerned about liberty than partisans are.  i am starting to feel pretty good about changing my registration next year.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 19, 2013 23:48:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i was most interested in the headline on this one: that people are now more concerned about liberty than security in the terror war.

it's about f-ing time.

but there is a second level part that is fascinating, and a third one.

the second level one is how far out of touch with their constituents the political establishment is about Snowden.  most Americans view him as a whistleblower.  most politicians view him as a traitor.  that is interesting, and i think quite significant.

the third level one is that independents are far more concerned about liberty than partisans are.  i am starting to feel pretty good about changing my registration next year.

I agree- it's great news for libertarians.  I am not quite a big "L" libertarian and I don't think I will be.  I think what I've learned from being a Republican is that hoping a party will stay true to its ideals once the money starts rolling in is foolish.  

[djAdvocate]

Jul 20, 2013 7:38:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 19, 2013 23:48:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i was most interested in the headline on this one: that people are now more concerned about liberty than security in the terror war.

it's about f-ing time.

but there is a second level part that is fascinating, and a third one.

the second level one is how far out of touch with their constituents the political establishment is about Snowden.  most Americans view him as a whistleblower.  most politicians view him as a traitor.  that is interesting, and i think quite significant.

the third level one is that independents are far more concerned about liberty than partisans are.  i am starting to feel pretty good about changing my registration next year.

I agree- it's great news for libertarians.  I am not quite a big "L" libertarian and I don't think I will be.  I think what I've learned from being a Republican is that hoping a party will stay true to its ideals once the money starts rolling in is foolish.  

that is a fairly realistic lesson, but not a very hopeful one.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 20, 2013 11:38:12 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

the second level one is how far out of touch with their constituents the political establishment is about Snowden. most Americans view him as a whistleblower. most politicians view him as a traitor. that is interesting, and i think quite significant.

Yes, interesting. I've always felt that the political establishment was out of touch with its constituents and it goes far deeper than Snowden.
I would just like to know who it is that they think they are working for. 

oh, they know who they are working for.  it's not us.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The government has to view Snowden as a traitor.  If they encourage whistle blowing we'll have people leaking even more invasive programs that are "for our own good".

Technically he is a traitor, regardless of how you feel about the leak.  You sign mountains of paperwork when you're issued a clearance and read into different classified programs.  There is no unless the people have a right to know clause.  If you leak the information you can be charged with treason.  Period.  It's all in black and white and he willingly agreed to it. 

It doesn't end with your employment either.  When I separated and was read out I had to sign another bunch of paperwork that said I'm not allowed to talk about certain aspects of what I did until they're completely declassified or after my 75th birthday.  Even down to being unable to publish a work of fiction without it being read and approved by Air Force OSI.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 20, 2013 12:49:35 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The government has to view Snowden as a traitor.  If they encourage whistle blowing we'll have people leaking even more invasive programs that are "for our own good".

Technically he is a traitor, regardless of how you feel about the leak.  You sign mountains of paperwork when you're issued a clearance and read into different classified programs.  There is no unless the people have a right to know clause.  If you leak the information you can be charged with treason.  Period.  It's all in black and white and he willingly agreed to it. 

It doesn't end with your employment either.  When I separated and was read out I had to sign another bunch of paperwork that said I'm not allowed to talk about certain aspects of what I did until they're completely declassified or after my 75th birthday.  Even down to being unable to publish a work of fiction without it being read and approved by Air Force OSI.

the term traitor should not apply to exposing actions which are questionable, imo.  i think that is what we are seeing in this survey.

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, this view of Snowden is completely bipartisan.  you are just as likely to view him as a whistleblower if you are a Republican than if you are a Democrat.  actually, it is weird how much parity there is on the political spectrum in this survey on ALL questions asked.  that is probably because this sort of thing can't be measured on the liberal-conservative spectrum.  it has to do with ideas of government which are independent of that spectrum: ie statism.  what you find is that there is surprising agreement along that spectrum across party lines.

then again, it is just one survey.  who knows?

[Sum Dum Gai]

He leaked information that the government classified, and information can only be classified if an approving authority feels that it's release would cause serious or grave harm to national security.  Purposely causing serious harm to your native country is the legal definition of treason, and people who commit treason are legally referred to as traitors.  He's a traitor, in the legal sense.

Discussing whether or not the public knowing the existence of the program does actually cause any harm to national security is a total valid topic though.  If it doesn't it never should have been classified to begin with, in which case he wouldn't be a traitor for publicly talking about it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 20, 2013 13:04:45 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

He leaked information that the government classified, and information can only be classified if an approving authority feels that it's release would cause serious or grave harm to national security.  Purposely causing serious harm to your native country is the legal definition of treason, and people who commit treason are legally referred to as traitors.  He's a traitor, in the legal sense.

i am not arguing against that.  however, there is a higher law that we must all answer to: our conscience. 

Discussing whether or not the public knowing the existence of the program does actually cause any harm to national security is a total valid topic though.  If it doesn't it never should have been classified to begin with, in which case he wouldn't be a traitor for publicly talking about it.

yeah.  between you and i: i am loving how much light this throws on dark places.

[Deleted]

the term traitor should not apply to exposing actions which are questionable, imo. i think that is what we are seeing in this survey.

I think he's both a whistleblower AND a traitor.  But there's no denying that what he exposed is serious.  And I agree the balance between privacy and safety has gone way out of whack.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 20, 2013 15:13:43 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

the term traitor should not apply to exposing actions which are questionable, imo. i think that is what we are seeing in this survey.

I think he's both a whistleblower AND a traitor.  But there's no denying that what he exposed is serious.  And I agree the balance between privacy and safety has gone way out of whack.

the survey actually asks "is he MORE of a whistleblower or MORE of a traitor", or something to that affect.  so, they tacitly acknowledged that continuum.

[billisonboard]

Jul 20, 2013 13:10:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

...

i am not arguing against that.  however, there is a higher law that we must all answer to: our conscience. 

...

And there are times that answering to our conscience can mean imprisonment or even death.

[billisonboard]

Jul 20, 2013 16:42:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

.... the survey actually asks

45. Do you regard Edward Snowden, the national security consultant who released information to the media about the phone scanning program, as more of a traitor, or more of a whistle-blower? www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us07102013.pdf/

FWIW

[EVT1]

Jul 20, 2013 15:13:43 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

the term traitor should not apply to exposing actions which are questionable, imo. i think that is what we are seeing in this survey.

I think he's both a whistleblower AND a traitor.  But there's no denying that what he exposed is serious.  And I agree the balance between privacy and safety has gone way out of whack.

It's a floor wax, AND a dessert topping.


Hate to bring up  that other thread- the Zimmerman case- but- was the IT guy a traitor or a whistleblower?

The only way I see it is unless he was asked to lie or conceal something, he is boned- as the only people in that office he signed up to be a team member of that can make an informed choice on discovery material- are the attorneys.

Snowden can be boned as well- there may not be a whistle to blow here.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The only way I see it is unless he was asked to lie or conceal something,

Everyone who works on classified programs is asked to conceal something everyday.  That's what classified means, something the government has deemed needs to be concealed because it's release would damage national security.  He knew this going in and agreed to keep the information concealed.  There is no whistle blower provision when it comes to classified information.  Regardless of your reason for releasing the information, the act of releasing it is treason.

[Sum Dum Gai]

If we are being visited by aliens, I WANT TO KNOW IT!

We aren't.  If we were you would know it.  More importantly if a race of beings from another planet had the capability to travel through space and visit other planets, they would be far more advanced than we are technologically, and if they wanted humans to know of their existence our government wouldn't be able to hide it even if they wanted to.

They could land a ship in the Stadium during the halftime show of the SuperBowl and announce their existence to the country, and there isn't a damn thing the DoD could do to stop it.

[billisonboard]

Jul 21, 2013 14:41:17 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

... there isn't a damn thing the DoD could do to stop it.

Yeah but the Men in Black could!

[Sum Dum Gai]

How do you think we would know it?

We wouldn't be able to hide it in the first place unless the aliens cooperated.  They're flying around in friggin space ships.  They could land one in Central Park, walk out, and say "take me to your leader".  There's no way for Uncle Sam to make something like that go away.

[Sum Dum Gai]

So, do you think that aliens wouldn't be advanced enough to transport a representative to earth, without having to land their ship?

How the hell would I know, they're aliens with the ability to leave their planet and travel to others which we can only dream about in science fiction novels and movies.  They could be capable of all kinds of things we've never even thought of.  The fact remains that the government would only be able to keep it a secret if the aliens wanted it to be a secret.  Why would they contact only America?  Why wouldn't they contact other governments?  Why would every government on the planet keep it a secret?  Why would the aliens allow it to be kept secret?

[mmhmm]

For another "why" ... why are we carrying on about aliens?  Snowden didn't say anything about aliens!  Aliens didn't kidnap Snowden; nor, did they kidnap any member of our goverment. Let's try to stay somewhere near reality, eh? 

[billisonboard]

Jul 21, 2013 17:37:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

... Let's try to stay somewhere near reality, eh? 

you are P&M, the farthest point in the universe from reality

[mmhmm]

Jul 21, 2013 19:34:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jul 21, 2013 17:37:40 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

... Let's try to stay somewhere near reality, eh? 

you are P&M, the farthest point in the universe from reality

ROFL!  And here I thought that was EE ... or YM!

[swamp]

I'm a democrat, or at least I think I still am, but I don't see Snowden as a traitor. Yes, I know legally that he fits the definition, bit I don't think it's a threat to our security to know this program exists. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

If terrorist cells in the US were using email to communicate they've stopped now.  The government lost that information channel by leaking that they were reading the email in the first place.  You ever wonder how the FBI first heard about all the terror suspects that they supplied with fake bombs and put away?  I tend to agree that the threat to national security of the program being public now is probably negligible, but I can easily picture a scenario where Snowden's leak puts people in danger.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

you are P&M, the farthest point in the universe from reality

ROFL! And here I thought that was EE ... or YM!

Hey! I (we) resemble that remark!

[djAdvocate]

Jul 21, 2013 14:16:38 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

The only way I see it is unless he was asked to lie or conceal something,

Everyone who works on classified programs is asked to conceal something everyday.  That's what classified means, something the government has deemed needs to be concealed because it's release would damage national security. 

i have a question for you, dark.  do you think that ANYONE (NSA, military, etc), has any obligation to conceal something that they KNOW is illegal?

NOTE: i am not asking about the Snowden case.  this is far more general, this question.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 21, 2013 17:27:51 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jul 21, 2013 15:13:09 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

We wouldn't be able to hide it in the first place unless the aliens cooperated.  They're flying around in friggin space ships.  They could land one in Central Park, walk out, and say "take me to your leader".  There's no way for Uncle Sam to make something like that go away.

So, do you think that aliens wouldn't be advanced enough to transport a representative to earth, without having to land their ship?

the question i am wondering is WHY THEY WOULD DO THAT?

are we sufficiently far off subject to merit the suggestion that we get back on, yet? 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 21, 2013 20:28:50 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

If terrorist cells in the US were using email to communicate they've stopped now.  The government lost that information channel by leaking that they were reading the email in the first place.  You ever wonder how the FBI first heard about all the terror suspects that they supplied with fake bombs and put away?  I tend to agree that the threat to national security of the program being public now is probably negligible, but I can easily picture a scenario where Snowden's leak puts people in danger.

can you think of a scenario where Snowden's leak saves a citizen of the US from indefinite detention and torture?

[Sum Dum Gai]

i have a question for you, dark. do you think that ANYONE (NSA, military, etc), has any obligation to conceal something that they KNOW is illegal?

Illegal according to whom?  The regular court system or the FISA court?