I COMPLETELY support Snowden.

[Bonobo]

Yes, I have tremendous respect for his courage and conviction.

Yes, I think he is brave. Yes, I think he is honorable.

No, I do not think he lied intentionally in any way. No, I do not think he did what he did for himself. This was no way to try to improve one's life. He took a tremendous risk and is paying for it. But WHY did he take the risk? Do you REALLY believe it was for fame? For riches? I think that is ridiculous on the face of it to believe such a thing. Only a fool would choose such a path filled with danger and pain -and he is no fool. So what is he?

His claim that there was "direct" access was based on his best information such as the Powerpoint file -and even if the access is not "direct", it is overwhelmingly pervasive and with little access with little real oversight or obstacles. Those that try to make a big deal about this one word being "debunked" are splitting inconsequential hairs.

After watching his videos, I have even greater respect for him. He sacrificed his entire life and took a blind leap off a cliff in order to remain true to the same values that led him to enlist in the army and the government. But rather than allow his values to be subverted, he remained true to them and did the RIGHT THING.

Just like we teach our children, he spoke up when he saw something wrong being done. I am grateful to him for his sacrifice and thankful that there are people like him. Imagine if there were only apologists and those ready to roll over when they became aware of these crimes against the citizens of the US and the world?

He is a warrior for human rights. He is a man who sees the lie behind nationalism because he has peered into the shadows behind the security state.

Yup, I'll say it. He embodies all the qualities I find honorable. He is a hero.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

-Edmund Burke

[msongs]

1. one must fight an evil empire where one can according to ability eh? nt

[kentuck]

2. There are so few.

Fighting to save the country.

[BehindTheCurtain76]

41. Of Course

Of course we support Snowen. He is an actual hero who sacrificed his way of life to actually protect our freedoms. He's not some apologist tool of oppression supporting killing entire families with lame excuse of protecting freedom. He actually is doing it.

[Autumn]

3. He did the right thing, he will suffer for doing it.

And I'm grateful that he did it. Recommended

[Catherina]

4. Unreservedly so. n/t

[Recursion]

5. I thought this wasn't about him?

I find his motives pretty opaque, personally.

[Bonobo]

8. That game works both ways.

Do you honestly think that people will not respond when the mouth piece apologists for the Security State here continually post about him?

No, in the larger sense it is NOT about him.

But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion of him.

I hope you're done now or can make a more substantive post. Because that was just whiny.

[Recursion]

10. Fair enough. I can't say much about him because I'm only about 85% convinced he exists at this point

And, from what I have seen, he is a complete cipher to me.

[Bonobo]

12. I have no idea what that means (except literally)

It has got my interest though.

Can you state what you mean in another way?

[Recursion]

14. I rate my confidence at about 85% that "Edward Snowden" is a real person

and that the person in the video and the acrobatic-dancing girlfriend are not actors.

[Bonobo]

17. I must admit.

I like that kind of thinking and that kind of suspicion.

You give me something to think about, but at this point I would like to hear much more of your reasoning (if you would kindly oblige me).

[Recursion]

20. The only footage of him is that produced video

There's no social media trail, and no direct contact with anybody other than Greenwald; everything else has been online as far as I know.

[marions ghost]

40. Creative

but not plausible.

[totodeinhere]

54. No, he had direct contact with a reporter from a Hong Kong newspaper, the South China

Morning Post.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1259508/edward-snowden-us-government-has-been-hacking-hong-kong-and-china

[Recursion]

56. Thank you. I didn't realize that interview was face to face

That's good to know.

[Blanks]

158. He did a 'face to face' interview with a newspaper...

Half a world away and the story itself shows a still of him - and you are convinced.

You aren't much of a conspiratologist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

144. Booz Allen Hamilton confirmed he worked for them; the US government put out arrest warrants

The Chinese government has said he's real (they rejected the extradition request for him, for instance, as not having the correct name).

If you think all these players have made him up, as well as Greenwald, then you are picturing the world's biggest hoax.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. "But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion of him."

Cool.

Others have an opinion of him as well and it might differ from yours. Shocking, I know.

It's just interesting how people critical of him get shouted down by people screaming "IT'S NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN!"

But an OP like this is all good.

I sense a double standard.

Yep.

[Bonobo]

24. Shouted down?

By saying "It is not about Snowden"?

Please tell me how that is "shouting someone down."

ProSense, for example, posts daily multiple threads about Snowden and has done so for the past several weeks.

Has she been "shouted down"?

Do people have the right to reply to an OP by saying "it is not about Snowden"?

Yes, they do.

I have no double standard on the issue, but I enjoyed some cheese with your whine, so thanks for that.

[Cali_Democrat]

35. I actually don't have a problem with a vigorous discussion about Snowden

And you are discussing him in your OP and that's fine with me.

But if I got a dollar for every time someone told me or ProSense or anybody else "it's not about Snowden", I'd be a very rich man.

The only people who have been saying "it's not about Snowden" are people in love with the guy.

Again, I don't have a problem discussing him...it's other folks that do.

[Bonobo]

36. So let's agree that:

1. There is the issue of the NSA spying

2. And there is the (much smaller) issue of what our personal opinions of Snowden.

One is important and the other is vastly less important.

Agreed?

[kentuck]

52. It's still not about him...

It's about his deed. If someone admires what he did, that does not mean it is about him. If they speak highly of him, it is because of what he did, not whether he is a Democrat or Republican or a "Paulbot".

[baldguy]

81. Then you're completely opposed to the premise of the OP.

Because the OP is about Snowden.

[kentuck]

124. But he finds him honorable because of what he did....

Not because of who he is. In fact, most of what we have heard about him, Ron Paul supporter, against Social Security, etc, would make us think he is not the type of person we could care about. But what he did overrides his personal deficiencies, in some people's minds. It was for a bigger purpose than himself, although many would disagree with even that. But from what he gave up and what he has had to endure, and will continue to endure in the future, makes an honest person look at him in a different light, in my opinion.

[nashville_brook]

231. well said.

[gholtron]

162. The problem with Snowden is

His inconsistence words and then actions. For example. In the video he made Before he left Hong Kong he said the following.

“I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded.”

He then tried to apply for asylum in the very countries that continually do that. To give you an example, he applied for asylum in Russia, and China. Are you going to tell me that they don't spy on their people? Well you might argue that there is no evidence of that and that's fair. But he also applied for asylum in Germany in which he said that the N.S.A is spying on Germany. The Germans turned him down for his request for asylum. Then he released the following.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nsa-in-bed-with-german-intelligence-says-us-whistleblower-edward-snowden--and-gchq-operates-a-full-take-data-monitoring-system-8693793.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/edward-snowden-accuses-germany-of-aiding-nsa-in-spying-efforts-a-909847.html

Also from the video interview he said the following.


“I think the government’s going to say I’ve committed grave crimes and violated the espionage act and aided our enemies in making us aware of these systems.”

Well, what do you call it when you take or more appropriately Steal government computers with Top Secret Classified information on it and is was capable of connecting with classified government servers and flee to a Communist Country and have conversations with that government's official?

But here's the thing that bothers me the most about him. He said that the did this because HE determined that the people should decide on whether collection of records is appropriate? He didn't actually say that the NSA was breaking the law at least I didn't hear it. In fact, the documents that he took also contained Rules and Procedures in which the NSA has to follow to obtain a FISA warrant to collect such public data which is meta data. In other words the rules and procedures were written to PROTECT the privacy and the 4th Amendments of each American. He did NOT show any evidence that any laws were broken. He was just opposed of having meta data collected. The NSA is an intelligent agency. Like many other country, they have to analyze information. They are charged to keeping us safe. We may not like the methods but there isn't any proof that any laws were broken. You had oversight from the intelligence committee of Congress. You have the courts involved in issuing warrants. The the collection of data was meta data which is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment because we don't own the meta data. He knows that or should know that if he is as intelligent as everyone makes him out to be. Who knows what kind of top secret information he took and what the Russians and Chinese know? All this just because he didn't like it.

two other quotes .

from the video:
“I joined the intelligence community when I was very young…and I believed in the nobility of our intentions to free oppressed people overseas.”

from his interview with the South China Morning Post:
Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who leaked information on the National Security Agency's surveillance programs, says he sought the job with Booz Allen Hamilton to gather evidence on the agency's data collection networks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/edward-snowden-booz-allen-hamilton_n_3491203.html

Again whistleblowers show evidence of law breaking and not showing the world what YOU don't like.

[LiberalLovinLug]

205. The problem with your reply is

You are hung up on what is The Law and discounting what is morally right. The fact that Congress has quietly made it all technically legal doesn't excuse the practice. No laws were broken in East Germany under Stasi either. In fact there are reports that Bush Jr. brought over the former head of Stasi in that former eastern block country for advice when they set this all up.

"He was just opposed of having meta data collected." Just?!

And Russia is far from a Communist country today, if it ever really was. It is an authoritarian oligarchy with the trappings of democracy.

[gholtron]

208. You're right that I'm hung up on law.

Who makes the decisions of what is morally right and wrong? On which criteria do we weight what is right? Some people may find that the collection of meta data without violating their rights to track and find those that want to do us harm is morally right. I don't need him to decide what is morally right for me. You may be fine with him deciding for you and your family.

[LiberalLovinLug]

210. People do, citizens do

At least they should be the ones that decide what is morally right and wrong. You are raising good questions here though. Think about the fact that you would not even be raising these questions if the Snowden story never happened. That is the good he has done. He certainly cannot dismantle the program himself. He himself can hardly "decide" the morality about the government having this kind of secret authority to listen in on YOUR private communications, that remains strictly for you to decide. But what he can and did do was bring it all out into the open for discussion, which you seem to be embracing. Certainly I believe that the State should have some authority to wiretap suspects who would do harm.. with enough evidence.

The danger I see is that there is virtually no oversight. Or that whatever there is could be highly partisan and automatic and the public would never know. If this is what happens under a Democratic administration, can you imagine what kind of reach a "I wish this was a dictatorship" Republican President would use? Every slightly left of center organization would be targeted. Perhaps everyone here contributing on DU would be monitored as high priority. Its a slippery slope.

[gholtron]

223. My morality may be different from yours

We just can't pick and choose to violate the law just because I or you decided that the law is immoral. That's a recipe for anarchy. If you don't like the law the we elect representatives to change the law. Secondly, there is no proof that the government is listening. Snowden didn't say the NSA was listening to your calls and reading your emails. You know let's just drop it. If you think what Snowden did was noble then so be it. I think he has done great harm to this country and is a traitor to this country.

[Progressive dog]

213. I'm hung up on law too, and I can't imagine how

anyone else isn't. For instance the Constitution is a law, don't tell me someone's personal religious "morality" should ever be an excuse to violate laws. Governments either use laws or people set rules as they see fit. Government can't work without laws.
If you break laws because you believe that the laws are wrong, then if you don't have the guts to stand up and give your side in court, you are not a hero.

[LiberalLovinLug]

220. What court?

A closed to the public kangaroo court like Mannings? If he were taken in he'll be whisked away to a maximum security prison and no reporter will be aloud to interview him. Out of sight, out of mind. How much to you hear about Manning or his trial in the MSM?

Do you also think southern slaves should have gone to court instead of running?

The ANC was banned in 1960, and Nelson Mandela went into hiding for two years before he was caught. I guess that strikes him off your hero list as well.

In each of these 3 cases the government had/has set up such an all-powerful draconian set of laws and you'd be sacrificing yourself to the whims of these courts which in the present day is itself bound to the edicts from the government under new anti-terrorist and Homeland security gagging laws. So what good would that sacrifice do? Do you think he'd actually have a chance win his case and walk out free? Or would the public at least be able to hear his side of the story in that "court"? Of course not, and you know it, his guilt has already been decided on by the "deciders" who don't fancy being embarrassed much longer in their invisible clothes.

So again what good would that do? This way at least there is a discussion going on.

[Progressive dog]

221. I didn't know Nelson Mandela lived in the USA and

that the US government locked him up. I didn't even know that Bradley Manning wasn't in the military. But I can see why fleeing slavery is just like stealing classified material and fleeing to avoid prosecution. I hope you are not trying to make a claim that slaves who had no civil rights equate to Snowden who does. I'm going to believe that no one could be depraved enough to actually mean to give them moral equivalence.

Do you also think southern slaves should have gone to court instead of running?

[LiberalLovinLug]

227. So its just Americans that run from the State that are cowards?

Okay got it.

Did I say they were morally equivalent? Such a typical straw man argument strategy. Argue against things that were never said...and presto.....you win! And the side benefit is that you never have to address any real questions. Like do you really believe he'd get a fair and open trial in the US? And don't you think we are talking about this precisely because he didn't immediately surrender and be whisked away and hidden in a high security prison cut off from press and have his lawyer be gagged for "security" reasons?

[Progressive dog]

230. Whose laws did Snowden run from, South Africa? LOL

Did I say they were morally equivalent?

Yes you did. Just to refresh your memory, I'll re-post what you wrote

Do you also think southern slaves should have gone to court instead of running?

Since the discussion was about Snowden running, that is what you are comparing slaves running to. I gave you the benefit of the doubt about making depraved comparisons and I must apologize for viewing your opinions more favorably than they deserved. If this was a straw man, it's yours, you built it.
Just for laughs, I'll answer some of your questions.

Like do you really believe he'd get a fair and open trial in the US?

Yes, no doubt at all.

And don't you think we are talking about this precisely because he didn't immediately surrender and be whisked away and hidden in a high security prison cut off from press and have his lawyer be gagged for "security" reasons?

No, that's ridiculous. He would have been out on bail quickly, if he hadn't fled.

If you break laws because you believe that the laws are wrong, then if you don't have the guts to stand up and give your side in court, you are not a hero.

[gholtron]

224. Manning broke the law

and was tried in a military court. Period.

[Half-Century Man]

44. Things you can't unsee

Now I'm hungry

[cheapdate]

86. Well, your first message reply out of the gate

was a preemptive attack against anyone who might tender a counterargument -- "mouth piece apologists for the Security State" was your pre-rebuttal, I believe.

That may not be "shouting someone down", but it's close.

[Bonobo]

100. That is NOT shouting someone down.

It is anticipating, as you said, a barrage of attacks.

[Blanks]

160. And you'd be an expert on shouting down wouldn't you?

Some of your more obnoxious 'shout downs' are displayed on your transparency page because they were hidden. As well as the number of star members ignoring you.

You come across as a bit obnoxious when folks don't see things your way. I think Snowden handled this like the young punk that he is. If he'd handled it correctly, we'd know about the spying, but we still wouldn't know who leaked it.

Of course then we wouldn't have all these 'Snowden worshipping threads', and I guess you'd have to find something more productive to do.

[Bonobo]

161. Blanks...

You're shooting them.

[Blanks]

175. If Snowden had remained anonymous; it would have given you more time...

To develop witty come-backs.

It's a shame really. You seem fairly bright. That's been my Internet 'handle' for well over a decade. Do you think you're the first one to come back with that?

I was hoping you'd address the issue here which is: why didn't Snowden try to remain anonymous? My suspicion is he has a big ego. Why are you stroking his ego.

Particularly if it really is about what was leaked and not who leaked.

Serious question: why are you stroking his ego?

[Bonobo]

178. Do you think an anonymous leaker would really have credibility?

Ironically many call him a coward despite the fact that he was brave enough to show his face.

Imagine what a coward they would consider him to be if he did not.

Furthermore, do you really believe 'anonymity' would protect his identity? Of course not.

[Blanks]

191. An anonymous leaker would be trying to hide.

That anonymous person shouldn't care at all if the anonymous person is considered a coward or a hero? They are separate from it; if they are smart, they will agree with those who think that the anonymous leaker is a coward.

It's about the issue, right? Not about the character of the individual bringing the issue to light. Didn't you just say that a few posts ago? Right here on yet another 'Snowden worshipping thread'.

I agree that his desire for anonymity would probably not have been enough for him to remain anonymous for very long. That would have been the failing of whoever he confided in among the press. If this is as wide-spread as he claims ; he could have denied it, at least for a while.

The fact that his identity was revealed would be an example of what is wrong with the 'secret government'.

As it is he's running around the world and the vast resources of this 'secret government' can't seem to pin him down. Do you see the irony in that? Seriously, do you?

[LiberalLovinLug]

209. You can't be shooting blanks

Because you keep shooting yourself in the foot

A very confusing comeback from you. So trying to remain anonymous is less cowardly? And they would only identify him presumably when they finally catch up to him holed up , dirty and frightened, in a basement and he is dragged out in handcuffs, and you think this will help clean up this perception because it will prove that this eaves-dropping state apparatus is indeed all-powerful and somehow.....what?.....he will be then be percieved as less of a coward because the State caught up to him using, in part, some of that same eaves-dropping authority? Have I got that right so far? That that is a better way to have your actions be taken seriously? That you hide and don't want your identity revealed and be held responsible?

The fact is that he would be quickly identified and his name blasted on all the MSM within a day anyways. So your argument is moot. But your reasoning is all over the map. I'm amazed you could even hit your foot.

[Blanks]

216. Lets see if I follow your exquisite reasoning...

Dude is really smart and can travel undetected throughout the world without the 'secret government' being able to catch him... But, if he'd have tried to remain anonymous and leak the information to the press - the MSM would have found out and leaked his name within 24 hours. Is that about it.

Here's the problem with this entire Snowden discussion. Snowden supporters seem to think in terms of if you don't think he's a hero, then obviously you think he's a coward - very black and white. Obviously, one is good, the other is bad.

Not everyone looks at it that way. I think he's doing this for his ego. That isn't a statement about his heroicness. That's a statement about his motives. This isn't supposed to be about Snowden - remember. That's why you think there's holes in my logic. You are trapped in this hero/coward mindset.

As far as your whole 'dirty basement... scenario'. Is that how deep throat was discovered after informing on the Nixon administration watergate spying scandal. Because I believe that guy died of old age, and thats when we found out who he was.

So, while it is not a question of hero/coward it is a question of smart/stupid. I don't think your hero is all that bright.

[LiberalLovinLug]

222. You know what they say about ASSUMING

I have never knighted Snowden with the "hero" label. Some have gone there and I understand why. His actions were certainly brave considering the cost of his revelations will lead to a life of paranoia and misery.

But it is not I that have said anti-Snowden posters regard him as a coward, it is they themselves. Just scroll through the thread.

I gather most think in more grey terms. They are still wrestling with personal definitions of his actions.

You think its all about ego. He just wants to be famous. Don't you think there are better ways to be famous? America's Got Talent for instance. Did Gandhi and Mandela and Martin Luther King also stand up and accept being a public figure knowing they'd be turned into celebritized figures by the press..and do it all because of their massive egos?

I know its easy to be cynical in this world, but sometimes people actually do things that they are morally compelled to do. It is not they that decide how much of a celebrity they are. Celebrity, either good or bad, is created by the MSM.

[Blanks]

232. I can't tell you what the motivations of MLK, Ghandi etc...

But yeah, there was probably some ego involved.

Is that where all this Snowden worship is headed. You're comparing him to civil rights leaders.

I believe that people stand up and do things because they are 'morally compelled'. You list three excellent examples of people who have done that.

I can't see how anyone benefits from diminishing the status of civil rights leaders by comparing them to someone who has turned over secrets to foreign nations. There's a difference between leading people in a passive resistance to oppression and stealing secrets and leaving the country.

I assume you understand that.

[Katashi_itto]

110. It was accurate.

[Bobbie Jo]

153. It was bullshit.

[Katashi_itto]

154. Screaming that it's BS doesn't make it any less accurate.

[Bobbie Jo]

155. Screaming "it's accurate" doesn't make it so, either.

See how it works?

[Katashi_itto]

156. I am not the one with issues about whats being said

[Bobbie Jo]

157. Ok...

and?

[questionseverything]

233. he was not incorrect about direct access

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023209631

[questionseverything]

234. ....

http://www.themediaconsortium.com/reporting/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/affidavit-bp-final.pdf

My name is Babak Pasdar, President and CEO of Bat Blue Corporation. I have given this affidavit to
Thomas Devine, who has identified himself as the legal director of the Government Accountability
Project, without any threats, inducements or coercion.

I have been a technologist in the computer and computer security industry for the past nineteen years
and am a "Certified Ethical Hacker" (E-Commerce Consultants International Council.) I have worked
with many enterprise organizations, telecommunications carriers, as well as small and medium sized
organizations in consulting, designing, implementing, troubleshooting, and managing security systems.
This statement is to make a record ofmy concerns about the privacy implications for our society from
what I personally witnessed at a major telecommunications carrier, as summarized below.

~snip~

Our plan that evening was to migrate a set of users to the new firewall, and then determine if and how it
impacted access and functionality. We started testing and, all-in-all, the small users test migration went
very well. The test went so well that we then set out to migrate over 300 sites that were carrier owned
or affiliate locations. These 300 or so sites were mostly sales offices. We migrated the locations by
redirecting their traffic to the new firewalls. All was going extremely well. As the night went on you
could feel the relief taking over the anxiousness everyone had felt earlier.

At one point I overheard C1 and C2 talking about skipping a location. Not wanting to do a shoddy job
I stopped and said "we should migrate all sites."

C1 told me this site is different.

I asked, "Who is it? Carrier owned or affiliate?"

C1 said, "This is the 'Quantico Circuit.'''

I remember that he paused and looked at me as did C2. I inquired, "Quantico, Virginia? Is this a store
location?"

C1 responded, "No."

"Is it what I think it is?", I asked.

[sabrina 1]

106. It wasn't, but the defenders of the Surveillance state made it about him, so now they

are going to see the results of doing so. Not what they expected apparently. He has had several offers of asylum now in one of the most Democratic areas of the world with more likely to come.

He has already received an award for his bravery, unlikely had the Surveillance State Defenders not been so determined to try to demonize him. Those tactics USED to work, but they don't anymore. People do not trust our government, not even Americans so when they see them going after someone like this, it is instinctive to defend them.

They are old, tired propagandists using old, tired 'smear' campaign tactics that most people recognize now and are not impressed by.

I wasn't that interested him until I saw the onslaught of propaganda, so familiar now as it happens to everyone who dares to speak out, and I decided that if they want to make it about Snowden, it is to our advantage to oblige them.

[RobertEarl]

6. Of course you do

Because you are pretty smart. If you were stupid.......

[Gregorian]

7. I keep seeing Dorothy's dog pulling away the curtain of the Great and Powerful Oz.

Until that moment, everyone was scared shitless and under control.



Anyone who has trouble figuring out what he did should read the Declaration of Independence- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

edit- It says "Right". It was his right to do what he did. As long as he wasn't trying to damage the country, which he clearly wasn't. it was his right to try and remedy or change the fault.

[Half-Century Man]

48. AMERICA..LOVE IT OR..

..work hard to fix what you see as broken.

[Luminous Animal]

11. I agree. Thank you for the post.

[hifiguy]

13. Abso-freaking-lutely.

100%

Rec'd.

[MotherPetrie]

15. K&R

[Zorro]

16. Did Snowden make the country safer with his revelations?

[Bonobo]

18. Time will tell.

But the question is "safer from whom and safer for whom".

[truebluegreen]

19. To answer that you first have to answer

who, or what is the greatest danger to the nation.

Who or what to do you fear most?

[totodeinhere]

59. The issue doesn't have to be about safety.

NSA spying is too ubiquitous and needs to be stopped whether it's a safely issue or not.

[woo me with science]

21. Hear, hear.

I agree wholeheartedly and could not have said it better.

[MjolnirTime]

23. This will be a good bookmark for when Ed goes down. Get the whole Fan Club in one spot.

The suspense is terrible.
I hope it will last.

[Bonobo]

26. "Have at thee!"

[Octafish]

122. That's what NSA says about DU.

They'll send the enemies list to the proper authorities.

[CakeGrrl]

25. Can you imagine the

vitriol that would have been directed at the OP if this post had read "I COMPLETELY support President Obama" with the emphasis intact?

That's rhetorical. I can grab examples without hardly tryin'.

[Bonobo]

28. If the issue were regarding NSA surveillance...

Then the poster would deserve the vitriol IMO.

Anyway, the floor is all yours. You can say whatever you like.

[CakeGrrl]

37. I disagree. I don't think his motives are as honorable as you believe.

But that's all I'll say.

My point is the blatant double standard in place.

Some of the same people who enthusiastically agree with you would not only disagree with someone who posted with my title, but attack the poster's intelligence, capacity for independent thinking, and mental state.

It's just my commentary on the decline of the quality of tone and discourse this forum has taken.

[ProSense]

27. Oh please,

"He is a warrior for human rights. He is a man who sees the lie behind nationalism because he has peered into the shadows behind the security state. "

...he's a warrior against the government. You make it seem as though he's busy railing against human rights abuses around the world.

His goal was to screw the U.S. government, flee and hope to get asylum in another country where he will live out his days.

He harbors some flawed notions about reality: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023203719

He invented most of his claims.

[Bonobo]

29. "He invented most of his claims."

That was really a silly statement.

Did he invent Prism?

[ProSense]

32. No,

"That was really a silly statement. Did he invent Prism?"

...it's isn't. He invented the claims about PRISM, and he still can't back them up. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023203719

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Well Snowden claims proof about direct access is coming

Something tells me we'll be waiting for a very long time.

[Bonobo]

47. He didn't invent any claims about Prism.

If the Powerpoint was inaccurate about the "direct" access, it was not his doing.

[ProSense]

51. You

"If the Powerpoint was inaccurate about the 'direct' access, it was not his doing. "

...can't be serious? Why is he still pushing the claim and still unable to provide evidence?

[Bonobo]

55. Reductionism.

[ProSense]

62. Can't answer the question, huh? n/t

[Bonobo]

63. It was

a worthless question.

"Still pushing the claims", you said.

Which claims? If you can't be more precise, there is no way to begin to answer the question -not mentioning the fact that the "why" question would require specualations into his motives.

So...worthless question.

[ProSense]

69. You said: "If the Powerpoint was inaccurate about the 'direct' access, it was not his doing."

I asked: Why is he still pushing the claim and still unable to provide evidence?

It's a valid question that has nothing to do with you claim that the original slide was "inaccurate."

[Bonobo]

74. OK then

You said he is still pushing "it".

Can you provide evidence that he is still claiming the "direct access" part?

And...more importantly... what is so important about the "direct" part? Admittedly it would be a little worse if there was "direct" access, but other evidence in the past suggests that such direct access has been sought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

You DO know about the above, right?

[reusrename]

97. It appears they use contractors for the direct access to servers.

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

They absolutely do have direct access. They just don't contract with the providers for it. There are contractors that provide the direct access.

http://www.subsentio.com/service-providers/electronic-surveillance-standards/


That way the telecoms still enjoy their not-so-plausible deniability.

In the industry it's referred to as "safe harbor" or "lawful compliance."

Don't bother trying to discuss this issue. Their minds are made up. This is the hill they choose to die on, I guess.

[questionseverything]

236. he was not wrong about direct access

http://www.themediaconsortium.com/reporting/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/affidavit-bp-final.pdf

My name is Babak Pasdar, President and CEO of Bat Blue Corporation. I have given this affidavit to
Thomas Devine, who has identified himself as the legal director of the Government Accountability
Project, without any threats, inducements or coercion.

I have been a technologist in the computer and computer security industry for the past nineteen years
and am a "Certified Ethical Hacker" (E-Commerce Consultants International Council.) I have worked
with many enterprise organizations, telecommunications carriers, as well as small and medium sized
organizations in consulting, designing, implementing, troubleshooting, and managing security systems.
This statement is to make a record ofmy concerns about the privacy implications for our society from
what I personally witnessed at a major telecommunications carrier, as summarized below.

~snip~

Our plan that evening was to migrate a set of users to the new firewall, and then determine if and how it
impacted access and functionality. We started testing and, all-in-all, the small users test migration went
very well. The test went so well that we then set out to migrate over 300 sites that were carrier owned
or affiliate locations. These 300 or so sites were mostly sales offices. We migrated the locations by
redirecting their traffic to the new firewalls. All was going extremely well. As the night went on you
could feel the relief taking over the anxiousness everyone had felt earlier.

At one point I overheard C1 and C2 talking about skipping a location. Not wanting to do a shoddy job
I stopped and said "we should migrate all sites."

C1 told me this site is different.

I asked, "Who is it? Carrier owned or affiliate?"

C1 said, "This is the 'Quantico Circuit.'''

I remember that he paused and looked at me as did C2. I inquired, "Quantico, Virginia? Is this a store
location?"

C1 responded, "No."

"Is it what I think it is?", I asked.

[Logical]

31. "He invented most his claims", yet other countries are upset and Obama is willing to discuss.......

privacy with the ACLU finally.

LOL, keep trying.

[ProSense]

34. And

"'He invented most his claims, yet other countries are upset and Obama is willing to discuss......."

...you think countries being "upset" is a sign of anything other that opportunism?

Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden "Satisfied" by Global Outrage over U.S. Surveillance Operations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023203147

[Bonobo]

65. Your attempts to derail with reductionistic, unanswerable, pointless questions.

have become quite transparent.

[ProSense]

70. LOL: "unanswerable"

You mean, like where's the proof?

[Bonobo]

75. Link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

[ProSense]

78. Maybe

Snowden is unaware of that 'link"

Der Spiegel: Do private companies help the NSA? Snowden: Yes. But it's hard to prove that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023203719

[Bonobo]

89. I'm the one laughing.

You claim that he invented his claims.

Which claims? The ones that the govt. has direct access/

I give you a link that provides evidence of such direct access and you try to play it off like a boxer who gets stunned with an uppercut but smiles on wobbly chicken legs.

I'm the one laughing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

[ProSense]

127. No,

"I'm the one laughing."

...I'm the one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023205264

[Bonobo]

129. And his claims are supported by facts.

My laughter continues unabated despite your circular, self-referential links.

[OnyxCollie]

120. This corroborates Snowden's claim.

From March, 2008.

http://www.whistleblower.org/program-areas/homeland-security-a-human-rights/surveillance/fisababak-pasdar

For civil liberties advocates, the first week of March 2008 wasn’t shaping up very well. For months, the House of Representatives had
been wrangling to work out a compromise bill for a pressing issue – anti-terrorist spying legislation. That political hot-button
guaranteed a tremendous amount of media coverage, as the bill represents Congress’ response to the “domestic spying” scandal
plastered on the front pages of newspapers for years – proof that the Bush administration had violated the privacy rights of American
citizens by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requirements to secure judicial warrants to target monitor
citizen’s communications.

~snip~

That’s when GAP helped our client, Babak Pasdar, educate our representatives on the full scope of what information certain telecoms
provided to the Bush administration. In a word – everything. Pasdar’s disclosures shocked Congress, and delayed the vote.

The “Quantico Circuit”

Pasdar, a experienced computer expert, was hired as a contractor to do security work for a major telecommunications company. In
doing so, he discovered a mysterious “Quantico Circuit” at the company’s facility (media sources identified the telecom as Verizon).
The circuit, linked to Quantico, VA, provided the federal government unfettered access to all of that company’s customer mobile phone
communications – all calls, emails, text messages, internet use, videos, billings, and even customer locations. However, the line was
configured so no record of what was being tapped by the government existed.

Pasdar stated that logs should be kept of what was recorded, but he was quickly moved off the project. When the telecommunications
immunity vote seemed imminent, he knew he had to expose his finding to the country before judgment was passed. How could any
immunity be reasonable, or just, if the full violations were not known? Pasdar sought help from GAP.

http://www.themediaconsortium.com/reporting/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/affidavit-bp-final.pdf

My name is Babak Pasdar, President and CEO of Bat Blue Corporation. I have given this affidavit to
Thomas Devine, who has identified himself as the legal director of the Government Accountability
Project, without any threats, inducements or coercion.

I have been a technologist in the computer and computer security industry for the past nineteen years
and am a "Certified Ethical Hacker" (E-Commerce Consultants International Council.) I have worked
with many enterprise organizations, telecommunications carriers, as well as small and medium sized
organizations in consulting, designing, implementing, troubleshooting, and managing security systems.
This statement is to make a record ofmy concerns about the privacy implications for our society from
what I personally witnessed at a major telecommunications carrier, as summarized below.

~snip~

Our plan that evening was to migrate a set of users to the new firewall, and then determine if and how it
impacted access and functionality. We started testing and, all-in-all, the small users test migration went
very well. The test went so well that we then set out to migrate over 300 sites that were carrier owned
or affiliate locations. These 300 or so sites were mostly sales offices. We migrated the locations by
redirecting their traffic to the new firewalls. All was going extremely well. As the night went on you
could feel the relief taking over the anxiousness everyone had felt earlier.

At one point I overheard C1 and C2 talkfng about skipping a location. Not wanting to do a shoddy job
I stopped and said "we should migrate all sites."

C1 told me this site is different.

I asked, "Who is it? Carrier owned or affiliate?"

C1 said, "This is the 'Quantico Circuit.'''

I remember that he paused and looked at me as did C2. I inquired, "Quantico, Virginia? Is this a store
location?"

C1 responded, "No."

"Is it what I think it is?", I asked.

C1 did not reply but just smiled. It was a very telling smile and I knew we were discussing something
unusual.

"What kind of circuit is it?", I asked.

"A DS-3," replied C1. (A DS-3 is a 45 mega bit per second circuit that supports data and voice
communications.)

C1 said that this circuit should not have any access control. He actually said it should not be
firewalled.

I suggested to migrate it and implement an "Any-Any" rule. ("Any-Any" is a nickname for a
completely open policy that does not enforce any restrictions.) That meant we could log any activity
making a record ofthe source, destination and type of communication. It would have also allowed
easy implementation of access controls at a future date. "Everything at the least SHOULD be logged," I
emphasized.

C1 said, "I don't think that is what they want."

"Who?", I asked, and again C1 and C2 did not respond.

C2 by this point had stepped back and his body language showed that he was very uncomfortable
discussing this matter.

"Come on guys, let's just do it and ask for forgiveness later. You know its the right thing." I suggested.

C1 and C2 did not want to comply. Instead they got on the phone with DS who asked me to stop what I
was doing and move on. To my surprise, he then drove the one hour or so to the data center.

The tentative, uncertain DS I had known was transformed into a man wagging his finger in my face and
telling me to "forget about the circuit" and "move on" with the migration, and ifI couldn't do that then
he would get someone who would.

I politely and in a low-key manner informed DS that my intention was to deliver security in line with
industry-acceptable use scenarios, and although I am not intimately familiar with their security policy,
it was reasonable to think that having a third party with completely open access to their network core
was against organizational policy.

DS did not want to hear any of it and re-doubled his emphatic message to move on. This was serious
stuff. He had let me know in no uncertain terms that I was treading above my pay grade.

When DS left, I asked C1 again, "Is this what I think it is?"

"What do you think?", he replied again, smiling.

I shifted the focus. "Forgetting about who it is, don't you think it is unusual for some third party to have
completely open access to your systems like this? You guys are even firewalling your internal offices,
and they are part of your own company!"

C1 said, "Dude, that's what they want."

I didn't bother asking who "they" were this time. "They" now had a surrogate face - DS. That told me
that "they" went all the way to the top, which was why the once uncertain DS could now be so sure and
emphatic.

[OnyxCollie]

139. See Reply 120. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

145. Yes, it is a sign of other things than opportunism. You think all other countries are craven

and only act from opportunism. We have some respect for them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. +1

[micraphone]

45. Come on....

Partly right. He's a warrior against ANY government that wants to spy on you and me with NO REASON.

And it's already spread like a cancer http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8895637/PM-Our-spying-is-legal

The only invention here is your denial of facts. Try reading up on Echelon, X-Keyscore et al.

He IS railing against abuses world-wide because we are ALL being spied on - not just the USA. We in other countries object violently to what many of YOUR fellow citizens seem to feel is "mmmm, okay".

He has left family, friends, job - everything - behind. What sort of life do you think he expects to have now?

Not nearly as limited in options as you wish him, obviously.

[ProSense]

60. Maybe,

"The only invention here is your denial of facts. Try reading up on Echelon, X-Keyscore et al."

...you should "try reading" Snowden's own words.

Der Spiegel: Do private companies help the NSA? Snowden: Yes. But it's hard to prove that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023203719

He has no proof.

[micraphone]

66. Definitely

Try blaming the Governments around the world. They are the ones who do the hiring of private companies.

Complicit governments are the problem. Snowden knows this and now so do a lot more of the word-wide "watched".

[Recursion]

107. Except, apparently, for Venezuela's government (nt)

[Amonester]

138. If Venezuela will be his new home, he will be spied on every minute!

Talk about a naive "shared-values country" concept.

Laughable. But I feel pity for his abysmal ignorance.

[L0oniX]

235. #

[blm]

30. Not me - the smell of Bush op has been mighty from day one.

Seems not many here remember 1999.

On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five US JDAM guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese reporters and outraging the Chinese public. According to the USA, the intention had been to bomb the nearby Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement. President Bill Clinton later apologized for the bombing, stating it was accidental.[1] Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet testified before a congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency,[2] and that the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street.[3] The Chinese government issued a statement on the day of the bombing that it was a "barbarian act".[4]
.......
Wikipedia

[Avalux]

33. Finally, someone who gets it.

Snowden is not who he appears to be.

[cantbeserious]

39. Thank You For Sharing Your Thoughts

eom

[sheshe2]

42. No! These People are Hero's.

These are the people that took a blind leap off a cliff.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023204032


Their lives could have been sacrificed helping others. However they ran toward the danger, not away from it!

They are the Brave Ones!

Snowden took flight....Boston ran toward the fight.

There's the difference!
Hero Indeed

[NineNightsHanging]

46. So, tell me how Snowden could "run towards the danger"

You mean getting tortured like Manning? What would that accomplish?

Ill tell you WHAT that would accomplish. It would make it even less likely for other leakers to come forward to tell us just how fascistic our government has gotten


I am beyond FLABBERGHASTED at some of the posts Im reading on this website. This country is in deeper trouble than you can imagine.

[Bonobo]

50. As Hunter Thompson said:

"Pray to God, but row away from the rocks."

[sheshe2]

71. Yeah....saw that somewhere.

Great response in supporting your Hero...

Night, night! Zzzzzzzzzz~

[Bonobo]

77. I thought you sounded sleepy.

Good night. Dream of a country that is not spying on you.

[Amonester]

58. Leakers are leakers when they can prove with tangible evidence what they claim is true.

Traitors just steal documents to sell them to anyone with $$ and fame.

He said it on tape himself: "that is hard to prove" (meaning, he has no evidence whatsoever to provide).


He's another attention-hungry a-hole.

[NineNightsHanging]

64. Can you prove he sold the documents? If not, you can't even hold

yourself to your own standard there.

[Amonester]

68. And I'm not self-proclaiming myself a leaker or whistleblower...

which proves my point.

[NineNightsHanging]

76. No Tangible Evidence?

Ill go to wiki since others are doing that---

"PRISM was first publicly revealed when classified documents about the program were leaked to journalists of the The Washington Post and The Guardian by Edward Snowden – at the time an NSA contractor – during a visit to Hong Kong.[1][2] The leaked documents included 41 PowerPoint slides, four of which were published in news articles.[1][2] The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008, Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.["

[Amonester]

87. That's not tangible evidence that the NSA *spies illegally* on US.

Naomi Wolf calls bullshit on the Snowden story [View all]

My creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be ...

by Naomi Wolf (Notes) on Friday, June 14, 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3026451

[NineNightsHanging]

92. Well it depends on your definition of legality

Mine doesn't include the FISA court's williy nilly expansion of laws (see the new york times article). So YES amonester, they are spying on US ILLEGALY.

The 'data mining' of all Americans is not in dispute, is it?

Even IF he isnt who he purports to be, he's done us all a service. That New York times piece likely would not exist without Snowden's actions, as one example.

[baldguy]

94. The USSC disagrees with you.

And it's their opinion that matters.

[NineNightsHanging]

98. USSC has not ruled on FISA's use of the "special needs" provision to justify universal data mining

Please DO get your facts straight. Thanks

And even if they do, it doesnt make it right. Do I need to point out all the terrible things that have been enshrined in law in this and other nations? hmm

[baldguy]

105. "Right" & "legal" are two different things. You said that FISA is illegal when in fact it IS legal.

Those are the facts. Please DO TRY to get them straight.

[NineNightsHanging]

111. I didnt say "FISA IS ILLEGAL" . reread what I actually said.

Then read the New York Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?hp&_r=1&

and this

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/fisa-courts-relevant-redefinition-challenged.html

[baldguy]

112. You tied yourself up in semantic knots.

"Mine doesn't include the FISA court's williy nilly expansion of laws (see the new york times article). So YES amonester, they are spying on US ILLEGALY." certainly means "FISA is illegal" any way you slice it.

[NineNightsHanging]

126. Not if you can read English

It doesn't mean "fisa is illegal" it means Fisa has gone on to abrogate to itself powers that go well beyond its mandate. Read the articles.

[NineNightsHanging]

199. Furthermore, regarding legality---read this from breaking news

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014531603

[Bonobo]

79. Did you know about this? Yes or no?

If the answer is no, like I suspect, you are not paying attention to the right things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

[Amonester]

96. Yes, and did you know about this? Yes or no?

If the answer is no, like I suspect (respectfully), you are not paying attention to the right things.

Senate Votes to Extend Sweeping Bush Era Surveillance Powers
Even modest attempts to reign in domestic spying law fail as Senators defend sweeping powers for NSA
- Jon Queally, staff writer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022091216

[Bonobo]

99. Absolutely. So we both knew about both things...

Where does that leave us?

Do I blame the Congress? Absolutely 100%.

Do I also assign a lot of blame to Obama? Absolutely.

I only brought it up to respond to ProSense's continual implication that Snowden was lying about the direct access.

[Amonester]

103. I think he is lying about the direct access because he can brag all he wants

like most juvenile crackers do, but he did NOT provide ANY evidence of him ever accessing what he claimed being able to directly.

[Bonobo]

104. But the link I gave you SHOWS evidence of direct access.

And even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter because they have secret, unopposed access all the time.

So what are we talking about really?

[Amonester]

113. That evidence was before the Senate vote

The Executive tightened the rules and Congress passed the bill.

President Obama signed it (also pressured by *elected* Dems).

[Bonobo]

116. So you think then that the access was cut off?

Whether it was or not, it certainly suggests that there is nothing ridiculous about Snowden's claim of direct access.

Do you agree?

[Amonester]

119. If there was nothing ridiculous about his claim of direct access

why didn't he directly access himself and proved he actually did it by, I dunno, copying a random email and showing it to the world?

Why would a true leaker/whistleblower not provide a tangible evidence of what he claims being able to do?

[Bonobo]

121. Those are really speculative questions.

Impossible to answer.

But we have established that there was direct access so I just don't understand what we are talking about here.

Do you think the access was cut off?

[Amonester]

130. They might have direct access, but they now have very strict rules to abide to

Since last December.

Do these private contractors all follow them? (In other words, do they break the Law?)

No evidence they do (yet). They might risk doing time if they get caught...

[Bonobo]

131. I strongly disagree with the assertion of "strict rules"

From what I have heard, the FISA court basically gives access to a wide net (read tens of millions) of data searches anytime they are asked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358098/How-judge-presides-secret-FISA-intelligence-courts-approve-indiscriminate-spying-indiscriminately-arrested-1960s-just-black.html

"Nonetheless, the court's judicial history shows a perpetual willingness to side with government. Out of 1,800 requests for surveillance orders that the court received last year, it did not reject a single one.

The court has been accusing of being a 'rubber stamp' for government security agencies, though judges sharply deny such charges and say they carefully weigh each request for spying.

Programs like PRISM and the cell phone data collection scheme - both of which were revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden last month - cast an exceptionally wide net, civil libertarians say.

They reportedly allow the government to capture data from everyone indiscriminately - even though the vast majority are innocent of any terrorism-related activity.

[Amonester]

135. Out of over 300 million people, 1,800 requests

for surveillance orders seems to be a very small number (with international links).

Look, Rep. Conyers just introduced a bill co-sponsored by a Republican to re-examine the whole stinking pile.

[Bonobo]

140. Except they are 1,800 requests that cover tens of millions of people.

Not 1,800 requests that cover 1,800 people.

So...swing and miss. By a lot.

[Amonester]

141. Take a look at this OP:

You know... the BFEE... Speculation? Or the truth? Swing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023204173

[sheshe2]

67. Apples to Oranges

Manning is Army/ Snowden a civilian.

Snowden could have stood like a man, he stated his lofty convictions as:

Snowden said the leaks were an effort "to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

He didn't inform, he fled.And he sure as hell leaked our info to other countries that do not support his convictions or ours.

Snowden said that he was predisposed "to seek asylum in a country with shared values"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

And no, you go google all those countries and see how much they support his values.

Night.

[NineNightsHanging]

202. Please--- "Standing like a man"? You're appealing to emotions

Daniel Ellsberg said he did the correct thing, considering our time.

and read this-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023153634

[Bonobo]

49. Many people can be heroes simultaneously.

Odd that you believe there is a logical connection that suggests there is an "either/or" involved.

[Gregorian]

88. Are you kidding? Those people can go home at night. Snowden took a giant hit for his country.

And he may end up losing his life over this. For us.

[AlinPA]

43. I questioned his motives (who are his customers, who is paying his way, etc.) and was called a

defender and apologist of an authoritarian state. Can't we have different ways of looking at this?

I'm not as certain as you are about his motives, of course what you say is entirely possible, and believe that it is also rational and possible that information about processes, locations of equipment, internal communications methods, and the like are valuable information to some groups and governments. His disclosures of the "how" and not just the "what" are different concerns. I'm not sure why it is ridiculous to believe he wouldn't disclose these processes for money. He is going to need a lot.

[BornLooser]

53. Ed was a citizen, he knew what the price would be...

And he called out super-secret government/corporate backed and sanctioned espionage, of our own citizenry no less, anyway. Heroes live up to a standard, abandoning self preservation...for others, the greater good, in the moment. You can have your illusions of "security", your blind obedience to fabricated and specious "law", your tired messages of "betrayal" and "helping the bad guys". I say Ed grew a pair, acted like a man should act in the face of gross and brazen felonies towards his fellow citizens, and just freakin' DID IT! So be like Ed, grow a pair, quit the crying in the tea towel bullshit, and be an American!...g'head, surprise yourself. Where have all the good men and women gone? Well I know of one, one who went to hell...and back, for you, and me, and she. Hero? Ask him.Traitor? Piss off. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[Bonobo]

61. And I say that people that cannot

spell "loser" or form paragraphs are not worth listening to.

[kentuck]

72. Read it again...

I'm thinking "looser" was intentional?

[Bonobo]

73. My bad. I misread it. nt

[BornLooser]

148. Buzzinga!!!

Keep it loose. Keep it on substance, but I hear the insinuation from 2 doors up. Wishful drivel.

[BornLooser]

147. Of course you do.

[kentuck]

57. I am going to bookmark this.

Just to check back in a few days and make sure everyone is still here. Just half-joking.

[Apophis]

80. I support what he did.

[baldguy]

82. Then, let me tell you about this bridge I have for sale...

[Bonobo]

83. Great joke.

If you're like 93 years old.

[baldguy]

84. Not nearly as good as the joke in the OP.

Except you forgot the tag. Some people might think you were serious.

[Bonobo]

91. You're about as fresh as Milton Berle. nt

[railsback]

85. Eddie certainly needs all the love he can get

[99Forever]

90. He did a very brave thing, no doubt.

But my bar for who I call hero is a bit higher than that. Not dissin' on you at all, just my personal take.

What really bothers me, is watching the vitriol directed at him and Greenwald. It mirrors the exact way the Bush people handled dissent. Apparently, final deed of sale of the Democratic Party to the 1% is complete.

[Hydra]

115. Grounding/Searching Morales plane smelled very Bush Admin too

But that shouldn't be surprising- many of the same people were kept on, and the policies continued or even stepped up. You could say both parties merged under someone who asked us to give him their hope so that they could better serve the 1%.

Interesting times.

[marions ghost]

93. I am grateful for the truths he has exposed

--and I hope his heroic action of civil disobedience can result in big change. Otherwise we can kiss our "freedoms" goodbye.

Well said, Bonobo.

[xiamiam]

114. good point..heroic action of civil disobedience..and great op, i feel the same way

He is 30 years old and that is very young to me. I am very appreciative that we have enough information to put a stop to some of this. Not going to be easy but it is very necessary. He gave up so much for us ..damn, we must not shrink from the responsibility of it.

[marions ghost]

164. thanks

good to concur on the basics without a lot of equivocation.

And I like your point about "we must not shrink from the responsibility of it." Agree, if we really appreciate his sacrifice for the sake of our rights, we will not lose this opportunity to push back against those who would watch, collect, and contain us. Their goals are now obvious.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. At the VERY VERY LEAST he has forced a discussion on an issue that is central to our ability to

live as a free people - An issue that would not be getting discussed right now if he had not raised it or had raised the issue in any less a dramatic fashion. If someday and somehow the Intelligence Industrial Complex is defeated and freedom wins - the world may very will see some day that they owe him a great debt of gratitude

[L0oniX]

181. ^^^^this^^^^ ...that's what matters.

[classof56]

101. I am COMPLETELY bored with this whole topic.

Yeah, I'm a tired old cynic, well into my 70s, and wish things were better, but Snowden's a warrior for human rights? A hero? Give me a break...

[Bonobo]

102. Your boredom is precisely what some people want.

Spying on everyone's personal emails, FB accounts and Skype calls?

Ho humm... give me something more exciting!

[madrchsod]

136. i have to agree with you...

i`m close to 66 and where`s waldo is really getting boring. snowden revelations won't change a thing.

somewhere in some building someone is doing the same thing snowden was doing. there`s people in other countries right now who are trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening again.

[Mojorabbit]

197. I am close to 60 and I am finding it absolutely fascinating. nt

[Swagman]

108. I think Edward Snowden has been extremely brave - if everything we

are being told is true.

His actions are heroic considering how furious the machine will be in pursuing him and inflicting punishment ala Manning (long before any trial takes place)

If he had strange right wing leanings beforehand then his actions should be applauded.

I do wonder though why he did not anticipate the furore and ensure his flight would not have been more secure.

## put it this way : he's a braver man than me in the same situation.

[wildbilln864]

109. yep!

[G_j]

117. Agreed

and I have noticed that many fine people, journalists included , of whom I have respected in the past, are supporting him. It's observable that the push against Snowden is concentrated mostly in the corporate media, and in the beltway especially.

[DesertDiamond]

118. Ditto!

[Waiting For Everyman]

123. I agree, Bonobo.

In times like these, we sure as hell need more whistleblowers like Snowden, not less.

Your OP shows guts and integrity too. Well done!

[Octafish]

125. Snowden stands for what the country was built on.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

His opponents may have some secret court and secret law on their side, but that doesn't supersede the Constitution.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

128. Face it,...some people are slathering over Snowden...

He didn't set out to be anyone's hero.

Didn't matter though, we have people here acting like Jar Jar Binks, "Oh, mooie-mooie! I love you! Mesa your humble servant. 'Tis demanded by the gods, it 'tis."

[Bonobo]

132. I don't have any idea what that post is meant to mean.

I am just responding so that doesn't become the thread-killer it shows every sign of becoming.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

137. A lot of Liberals are DESPERATE for a hero,...but they're also fickle....

Look what happened with Bev Harris.

[Skraxx]

170. Actually, Their Desperate for Anyone They Think Is Going To Destroy Obama

And they think dreamy Snowden is their guy. The little luv muffin that he is.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

174. Naw,...Obama was a fling for them but they don't want to destroy him....

I'll toss out another name to illustrate my point:

Cindy Sheehan.

[frylock]

179. that's why i voted for him again in 2012..

in hopes someone would come along to destroy him.

[Skraxx]

183. Sure You Did!

I believe you!

[frylock]

186. yeh, i'm lying..

that's the standard cheerleader rationale right there. you want I should take photos of myself in my two Obama t-shirts posing with my three Obama posters and twenty Obama stickers?

[Skraxx]

187. I Love Pics! Please Share!

Sure, why not?

I believe you!

[frylock]

188. here's your picture..

[Skraxx]

189. That's You? You're Cool!

Did anyone ever tell you you look like Johhny Cash?

[limpyhobbler]

133. Lot's of people agree. He should be pardoned

white house Petition
http://wh.gov/liZnR

[midnight]

134. K&R

[Douglas Carpenter]

142. knr

[stlsaxman]

146. And I do not.

Thank you.

[VOX]

149. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a hero. As are Rosa Parks and Edward R. Murrow...

But Snowden? He's barely there -- something about him seems as fake as a three-dollar bill.

I'll take a pass on the genuflecting.

[In_The_Wind]

150. Kicked & Recommended

[great white snark]

151. Of course you do.

The sky is blue.

[BeyondGeography]

152. I think he's paranoid, like many teabaggers

He also has no discernible life outside of technology, which he has conflated into life itself. He's more than a little warped. I wish more people would realize it.

[Enthusiast]

159. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

163. knr

[Towlie]

165. Edward Snowden: Hero of The People, Enemy of The State

Would you condemn members of crime syndicates who break their oaths and reveal the crimes committed by those syndicates to the authorities? Would you side with the Mafia against a "stool pigeon"? Probably not, unless you were a big fan of The Sopranos.

The government has committed crimes against the people and Edward Snowden has exposed those crimes to us, in spite of any oath he may have recited to the criminals. How does that justify a completely opposite moral standard than the one you would ordinarily apply?

Another way to put things in perspective when your moral compass gets confused is to consider your feelings about a work of fiction. Think about the fictional movie plot of Clear and Present Danger. If you saw it, did you condemn Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) for blowing the whistle on the President's illegal activities against drug cartels in South America? I didn't, and I doubt very many others saw it that way either. Jack Ryan was clearly the good guy and the President was the bad guy.

Think about what Admiral Greer (James Earl Jones) says to Jack Ryan from his hospital bed:

You took an oath, if you recall, when you first came to work for me. And I don't mean to the National Security Advisor of the United States, I mean to his boss... and I don't mean the President. You gave your word to his boss: you gave your word to the people of the United States. Your word is who you are.

Snowden may be an enemy of the state but he's a hero of the people, and it's a very bad sign when the people and the state are on opposite sides.

[think_critically]

166. totally off base

I think you are totally off base here. You are letting idealism trump reality. I can half way respect what he did as far as the NSA data collection on American's but his releasing details of U.S. espionage abroad is completely uncalled for and he should be severely punished because of that. Every country in the world spies, and anybody who thinks otherwise lives under a rock. Furthermore what's telling about Snowden is that the countries he plans on fleeing to do far worse things than anything our government does. Lastly and this is what pisses me off about people who live in an idealistic world. You don't realize that the world is a dangerous place and the fact that things are so interconnected now makes it that much more dangerous. That said ask yourself this question. What would you do if you were elected commander in chief and you saw a vast intelligence operation in place that you had some qualms about but you also knew about the threats that the country faces and the very real possibility that some terrorist may try and detonate a nuclear device in one of our cities or shoot down aircraft with should fired missiles. You are ultimately responsible for the safety of the country. Would you accept the program as a necessary evil or would you disband it and risk the potential consequences?

[Scuba]

167. Kick

Kicked, and kicked shining light on the lame and fellacious arguments of some of our most revered posters as they try to excuse the spying by questioning Snowden's motives.

Snowden's motives appear honorable, but even if they weren't, the spying is still wrong.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

168. A-Fucking-Men!

[Skraxx]

169. LOL! Oh, He's So Dreamy!

Funniest shit ever!

You know, I heard there's young girls who fell in love with the Boston Bomber too. They think he's cute and alll innocenty and stuff.

[Bonobo]

171. Boy you got me!

It's all about how he looks.

[Skraxx]

182. No! I Get It! He's Superman and Batman All Rolled Into One!

He has a long life history of perfecting his idealism, Apple Pie and America! His life is an open filled with heroic acts, public service and sacrifice!

[Bonobo]

184. No you were right the first time with your homophobic post

I'm a closeted gay man and it is all based on my thinking he is dreamy.

Don't back down now. You were just being your self.

[Skraxx]

185. LOL! You Think He's Dreamy Too?

We have that in common! He's such a luv muffin!

[Bonobo]

190. How could I possibly deny it?

It is the sole reason I wrote the OP.

[Whisp]

172. wouldn't that make you a cheerleading Snowdenobot?

Obama supporters are called bots all the time. what gives.

[Bonobo]

173. Call me whatever you want. nt

[Deep13]

176. Well, I sympathize and ever agree with him...

...but I haven't actually done anything to support him.

[Sheepshank]

177. How do you know he didn't intentionally lie?

how is that you continue to make claims of his motives....do you have some bead to him that is priviledged?

Sometimes it seems like people pronounce a cape and crown type of heroic attribute merely because the 'hero' was able to stick their finger in the eye of the giant, something they themselves have failed to do, no matter how hard they tried.

Poor reasoning for creating a hero out of lies, unclear motives, and actions without realization of consequences.

[Maedhros]

192. There is ample reason to believe Snowden did not lie.

His revelations are corroborated by:

Two Democratic Senators (Ron Wyden D-OR and Mark Udall D-CO) who sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee and have been trying to warn us since at least 2011 of the abuses Snowden revealed.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/06/06/nsa_collecting_verizon_phone_records_two_senators_have_protested_patriot.html

Three former NSA officials (Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe) have for years told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowden-whistleblower-nsa-officials-roundtable/2428809/

The Director of National Intelligence himself (James Clapper) admitted that he himself lied when asked about the scope of the NSA program which was confirmed by Snowden's leaks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/02/james-clapper-nsa_n_3536483.html

All of that, and the "non-denial denials" (to steal a phrase from Woodward and Bernstein) issued by the Administration are more than enough evidence to conclude that Snowden is most likely telling the truth.

[Sheepshank]

204. I guess you are arguing some points...NSA collection of info isn't in question

Snowden (amongst other things), indicated information he had access to, that he really didnt. He alluded to data collected and stole that he actually didn't. He made statements of activites that he never really conducted.

Thanks for letting us play with your strawman...but even you had to have known there was more being said than what you c&p'd.

[Maedhros]

211. Snowden may have misinterpreted or inaccurately related some information.

That can be debated on a point-by-point basis.

But on the whole his claims regarding the scope and focus of the surveillance program are valid. Wyden, Udall, Drake, Binney and Wiebe certainly think so. It's not prudent to ignore clear evidence of wrongdoing over the semantics of the term "direct access."

[Sheepshank]

214. Inaccurately related some information = lied.

I think we have an agreement.

[Maedhros]

215. Not necessarily. "Lie" speaks to motive, about which one can only speculate.

Most accusations of "lying" follow from Snowden's assertion regarding "direct access", which could be simply a semantic error.

[Sheepshank]

217. "Misspeak" refers to an accidental choice of words..also for which there is no evidence n/t

[allin99]

180. Donate to wikileaks, since they're helping him...

they even take paypal, so it's super easy.

[quinnox]

193. Enthusiastic K&R! I think Snowden is an American hero, a modern day Paul Revere

riding to warn America of upcoming danger and tyranny. I stole this whole concept from another duer, but I love it!

[marble falls]

194. I completely support Snowden coming back to the US to explain everything in a public and open....

trial. And I would like to hear a detailed public explanation by the President about Snowden's charges.

[we can do it]

195. So where do you send the checks?

[baronjake]

196. I completely think he is a coward

Why did he run? Heros don't run.

[marions ghost]

218. No way to carry out the mission otherwise

you know, against enemies foreign and domestic.

[LiberalLovinLug]

219. You're right

Heros sit in front of their computers and call out others who actually are forced to run under threat of a secret military court and possible torture and death as cowards.

[ProSense]

198. A message

from Wikileaks: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023209064

[indepat]

200. Light needs to be shown on whatever big brother does that intrudes upon the liberties enumerated in

out Constitution which elected officials have sworn to protect and defend: this seems a simple concept in a representative type of government.

[Mosaic]

201. Basically apart from all the repug bs, he defended human dignity

And the Fourth Amendment, the right to not searched unreasonably. For that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't understand anyone who can criticize him, they do not think deeply that's for sure. Our freedom and privacy are precious and we must all work together to defend them. There is much work to do yet.

[SomethingFishy]

203. But.. But.. He's a CHINESE SPY!

And you better wipe that egg off your face...

[caseymoz]

206. K&R: Well said!

[Peacetrain]

207. Nope not at all.. I completely support no one.. period..

That includes the President.. the mayor of my town... Joe Biden who I think the world of.. the Pope.. the Dali Lama.. myself with a cigarette, though I have not smoked in 15 years..

[rury]

212. I COMPLETELY SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA

The Patriot ACT/FISA is passed by Congress and signed by the president. Like it or not IT IS LEGAL!!
Edward Snowden is a racist, white supremacist, Ron Paul supporter who was FINE with surveillance used as an anti-terrorism tool when it was approved by George W. Bush, the white president.
Now that a BLACK MAN is running the executive branch of the government, Snowden decided to betray his country and turn tail and run and hide.
He ONLY wants to embarrass the first black president of the United States.
If Snowden was REALLY brave, he would be willing to return home and stand trial.
But he won't because he KNOWS he broke the law.
And his motive is hatred and fear of a black president - a black president who, of course, has done nothing wrong!
Snowden is probably counting on a book/movie deal.
He expects his crime to pay, no doubt!
When Bush was president, Snowden said anyone who spilled state secrets - like HE himself has now done - should have their balls cut off!
Oh, the irony!!! Oh, the humanity!
Let's see if the traitor/coward/racist Snowden has the balls to come home and face the music!!

[NorthCarolina]

228. Dafuq I just read?

"Let's see if the traitor/coward/racist Snowden has the balls to come home and face the music!!"

Yeah right, come back to a government that tortures it's prisoners. You wouldn't even have the balls to do that.

[NorthCarolina]

225. Excellent post

wish I could rec it a thousand times.

[WillyT]

226. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[cantbeserious]

229. Kick And Recommend

eom

[snappyturtle]

237. K&R Thank you.