ShareThis Page

The real Snowden

| Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the letter “Snowden: Hero not traitor” (July 11):

Letter-writer Kathleen Bollinger surely isn't naive enough to believe big brother is watching only now. Let's go back to the '50s and even the '40s.

Yes, it's true. The government has been snooping in our business for years. Had it been snooping more closely, maybe Timothy McVeigh wouldn't have killed all those innocent people and Major Nidal Hasan wouldn't have gone on his shooting rampage.

I believe Edward Snowden has given out secured information wherever he has stopped. The retired head of the KGB was happy to have him in Moscow, and does anyone think he was in Hong Kong for a Chinese dinner? The reason no one has wanted him is he's a liability that has consequences. This might change Ms. Bollinger's odd understanding of what a hero really is. He doesn't qualify.

The problem with the public is that they don't understand that, when you take a job requiring a security clearance, you read and sign certain agreements that include penalties for violating those agreements. You do this freely, knowing the responsibilities of it.

Maybe Mr. Snowden thought the government was going to overlook it. Hardly.

Is Snowden a traitor? That's for the legal system to decide. Did he break the law? Yes. Did he break the requirements of his security clearance? Yes. That's how I see it.

Regarding Bollinger's statement that she'd take her chances with the terrorists vs. the Obama regime, maybe we should go back in time and put her at the Boston Marathon or at the World Trade Center because she just doesn't get it. Terrorists don't care.

I see the government's snooping as a necessary evil and, if saves one life, it's worth it. I have nothing to hide and I don't know anyone who has been blackmailed.

Bollinger shouldn't turn against the country that's given her her freedoms. She might not want to know how she got them.

Jack Juris


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.