Edward Snowden Traitor or Whistleblower?

Started by Cheshire Cat, October 10, 2013, 12:50:49 PM

peestandingup

Quote from: ben says on October 18, 2013, 09:46:31 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 18, 2013, 07:04:20 AM
I am quite happy he is in Russia... and apparently so is he... win/win!

Why are you happy he's in Russia? How would his geographical location effect you whatsoever? Nonsensical at best

Don't you know? Whistleblowers need to be cast out so as to not disrupt the fantasy some would rather live in.

ChriswUfGator

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on October 18, 2013, 11:13:13 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 18, 2013, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: Apache on October 18, 2013, 02:25:39 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 18, 2013, 12:22:39 AM
Quote from: Apache on October 12, 2013, 12:26:12 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 11, 2013, 11:59:57 PM
Snowden should receive the congressional Medal of Honor, at least if we weren't a society of convenient hypocrites. What he exposed is WRONG, I don't much care who exposed it.

That's extremely over reaching bordering on ridiculous.
Not to mention there is no such medal as the "congressional Medal of Honor"

http://www.cmohs.org/

Sweet. There is a society. There still is no congressional Medal of Honor.

Yes, the society created to manage it doesn't know the name of their own medal. Obviously.

For what it's worth:

Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor

Etymology[edit]

Although the medal is sometimes erroneously referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor, the original and official name is simply the "Medal of Honor".[1][9][10][11]

Yeah, I read that Wikipedia blurb in trying to determine where he came up with this, and the Wikipedia poster who argues this cites the original act of congress not having styled itself "Act of Congress authorizing a Congressional Medal of Honor" and instead referring to it simply as the Medal of Honor in the Act (of congress). That would be quite the example of redundancy, you generally don't see congress calling the product of its own acts congressional, it was a congressional act, wtf else would it be? Again, Wikipedia, if he wants I'll go edit it then will I be right?

The notable thing about this medal is that it's authorized directly by congress and administered by the society I posted the link to above, as opposed to most military honors which involve the executive or the military branches directly. I don't know that it's incorrect to call it the congressional medal of honor, when there is more than one type of medal of honor and that one was awarded directly by an act of congress. I think it's also notable that to call it incorrect you'd have to overlook the name of the honor society the government has established to oversee it. You'd think they'd know the name of their own medal.