General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden's Dad: If Edward Would Have Stayed In the USA: "He would have been buried under the capital"
Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
UPDATE TO ADD:
People who are secretly breaking the 4th amendment to the hilt have no business calling a man who blew the whistle on them a traitor and railroading him for reporting their guilty secrets.
added, because, EVERYONE should read the transcript:
(not break into small groups for/against)
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-lon-snowden-donald-trump/storynew?id=19926953&page=3
STEPHANOPOULOS: You don't think he would have been protected by the whistle blower status?
SNOWDEN: Absolutely not.
And maybe at some point, we should go through that. You know, just hypothetically, let's imagine that Edward Snowden said, wow, there's a problem -- let's say he got on an airline in Honolulu and he chose to fly to Washington, D.C., lands at Dulles and he actually gets an audience with, oh, let's say, Peter King or Dianne Feinstein, how do we think that he would have been received if he had a private audience with them? We have seen how they reacted, even when the truth comes out, they spin the truth, they try to hide it from the American people. He would have been buried under the capital. And we would have never known the truth.
FULL TRANSCRIPT:
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-lon-snowden-donald-trump/storynew?id=19926953&page=2
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He reported on legal but secret programs of the US government, which isn't whistleblowing. This crap about how he would have been "disappeared" is kind of stupid, though; he'd just be in jail like hundreds of other people who have improperly transferred classified documents.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
Edward Snowden's Dad Calls Him 'Modern Day Paul Revere'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowdens-dad-calls-modern-day-paul-revere/story?id=19554337
Hmmm... who knew how influential a DU meme could be
Dad is right again!
struggle4progress
(118,278 posts)Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023450134#post60
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023437266#post92
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023435563#post84
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023435563#post18
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023432081#post1
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023430062#post14
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425589#post2
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014559504#post114
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023423946#post39
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023423946#post35
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023422546#post46
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023422546#post45
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023422231#post66
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023386577#post9
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023386350#post1
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023385598#post7
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023370593#post1
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023368645#post97
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023366786#post12
Demeter
(85,373 posts)but not adhered to. Furthermore, UNCONSTITUTIONAL trumps legal. That's what a Constitution is for...to stop bad law.
Of course, that means one needs a functioning, independent Supreme Court. This Supreme Court is complicit with the dragnet program of through the world spying.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)which are what make things "legal".
Furthermore, UNCONSTITUTIONAL trumps legal
The data they're looking at has no Constitutional protection. Smith v. Maryland.
"Legal" doesn't mean "good" or "wise". FISA as amended is a bad law. PATRIOT is a worse law.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)
And that requires a Supreme Court that functions...which we still don't have.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)Perfectly describes my position (and I think if the above is true, the ACLU challenge to the law won't get anywhere. The publicity that would surround that would be very bad.) But you can't get to a place where you can discuss the actual facts around here.
Not that it matters that much, as the real action is in writing Congress to repeal the PATRIOT act and generally wrestle this thing to the ground.
As for Snowden, said my piece about him, I'm done. He's damaged goods now and always will be.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)inlcuding the FISA court
Demeter
(85,373 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)and has been for nearly 10 years.
The executive branch, including the current one, has done all it can to prevent any legal challenges to see the light of day.
The programs that Snowden has provided info about on their face don't pass constitutional muster.
If they do it is time to see the specific legality and court ruling that underpins them. The fact that the government asserts that they are secret underscores their lack of legitimacy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He had the law available to him--Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, but he chose to be a coward.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)They weren't "been buried under the capital."
WASHINGTON The Justice Department has dropped its investigation into a former department attorney who tipped off the media about the Bush administrations warrantless eavesdropping program.
The department informed Thomas Tamms attorneys that he will not be prosecuted for the leak that then-President George W. Bush called a breach of national security.
Tamm has said he called The New York Times about the program because it didnt smell right and he thought the public had a right to know.
The Times won the Pulitzer Prize for its 2005 story exposing the program designed to catch terrorists by eavesdropping on international phone calls and emails of U.S. residents without court warrants.
<...>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/no-charges-for-man-who-leaked-surveillance-program/2011/04/26/AFt9o6rE_story.html
But if Snowden is returned to the United States, Tamm said, I think with the right representation, and with the right way of presenting what he did, I think hell be able to put his life back together. Tamm says hed even be willing to be part of the defense team.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/what-happens-to-whistleblowers-92744.html
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)been made "legal" by Congress. Obama had not yet voted to OK them.
Remember, they had to give retroactive amnesty to the companies that had cooperated with the government in the program.
The whole program was clearly illegal at that time, so they did not prosecute Tamm. That case is irrelevant to determining whether Snowden would be buried under the capitol.
He would be. I don't know what he has to gain by coming back.
The information he has released thus far and that I have seen (which is a small portion of it) has mostly to do with the legal framework of the programs and the secret workings of the courts. I do not see that as being of any use to Al Qaeda. It would not affect how they communicate in my view.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"2005 is irrelevant, ant the Tamm case is irrelevant because the programs themselves had not been made 'legal' by Congress. Obama had not yet voted to OK them.
Remember, they had to give retroactive amnesty to the companies that had cooperated with the government in the program. "
This is exactly what people get wrong when they conflate Bush's illegal spying with the current programs. The FISA amendments did not make Bush's illegal activities legal. It gave immunity to the telecoms.
Bush bypassed the FISA court completely, and actually eavesdropped on Americans. That was illegal and still is.
That was what Obama criticized when he said:
This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/no-comment-necessary-obama-on-surveillance-in-2007/
There have been a number of media reports using the same Obama quote to basically claim that he once called out Bush, but then embraced the policy. They are intentionally conflating a quote about the push for the Protect America Act with his position on the 2008 FISA amendments, which he voted for. They are not the same thing. The PAA was a Republican effort to absolve Bush.
Obama voted against the Protect America Act (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00309), which in fact expired in early 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history
Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)no matter what.
The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. The Bill of Rights drew a clear line between what the government can and cannot do, which rights can be negotiated and which not.
We are entitled as a part of our birthright to the total protection of the Constitution.
That a bunch of partisan, mealy-mouthed judges managed to politic, bribe and sway their ways onto the Supreme Court does not make them right, does not really put them above the Constitution. John Roberts nominates every judge on the FISA Court and as I understand it, all but one of them are Republicans.
If the representative of the people is chosen by the ACLU or by the defense bar, then maybe this idea will work. But if the appointees to this post are chosen through any structure that allows the president or the Supreme Court or Congress or any other partisan body to appoint that person, then this is worse than what we have now.
I have seen courts in which the public defenders were kind of part of the hack courtroom team, pretty much always assigned to the same judge. The case outcomes were predictable. The defense lost most of the time. One public defender assigned to the courtroom of a judge who had previously been a prosecutor announced one day that she was going to quit and work for the Post Office. Walking miles in the Los Angeles heat and glaring sunshine every day was preferable to her than the predictably unfavorable verdicts her clients were assured in that courtroom.
And this system does not alleviate the many problems with the surveillance
-- the chilling of the speech of Americans
-- the potential and undetectable abuses due to secrecy
-- the horrifying fact that only a few people at the NSA and their private contractors are able to decide what really happens to our metadata and stored data and have the total knowledge about any one of us that they select, perhaps at whim.
So what if we trust the Obama administration? Most of us here on DU trust and like Obama as a person.
But what if someone we did not trust or like, someone like Cheney or Rove or Sarah Palin, or a mouthpiece like Reagan or a forgetful, confused but revered senior like McCain or a traitor like Oliver North managed to wiggle his or her way into the White House?
Who is General Alexander? Why should we trust him with a list of our calls that reveals how long we talk to our friends or family or acquaintances?
Why should the NSA have a phone bill that reflects how many collection calls (mostly bogus) some couple in New Jersey get per month?
Why should we have to answer for the crimes or sins of all the telemarketing companies that keep us busy answering non-calls all day long?
No. The NSA surveillance stinks.
And my biggest objection is that it potentially puts infinite knowledge about every aspect of our lives in the hands of a few at the NSA, whether we are journalists, lawyers, teachers, writers, scientists, gun enthusiasts, collectors of war paraphernalia, legislators, mayors, governors or most importantly and we know already wiretapped, journalists. And if the NSA and intelligence agencies aren't perusing all of the data all the time right now, they will soon have the technology to do precisely that. But by then it will be too late for us to do anything about it.
We are relinquishing an enormous portion of the freedom our ancestors fought for. I oppose the NSA surveillance system -- all of it.
If the NSA wants to spy on terrorists, let them get appropriate warrants.
The NSA can read the Constitution, and if they can't, they can hire honest lawyers who defend the Constitution and tell them what it says loud and clear instead of the evasive, Ivy League pipsqueaks they hire to do their bidding and rationalize their excesses at this time.
Stop the NSA surveillance. Let them spy on criminals and terrorists and leave the rest of us alone. And make the process for obtaining warrants transparent. Stop the snooping on American citizens. And I do not want my government obtaining my personal data or phone or electronic communications data from other countries either.
They don't seem to be able to locate all the millions stashed in tax havens by the extremely rich in spite of the surveillance system. Makes me wonder just what they are looking for. Those tax cheats helped along by criminal bankers have done more damage to our country than the "terrorists" have thus far.
This is my response in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3452129
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...protect contractors, or does it just apply to government employees? I read somewhere that it is the latter, and that Snowden could not have used that law. But I would be interested if anyone knows the answer to that question.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)been obliged to go to Congress or the inspectors.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/18/19024443-analysis-why-edward-snowden-isnt-a-whistle-blower-legally-speaking?lite
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...very informative. From the link:
Instead, a separate law, the Intelligence Community Whistle-blower Protection Act, applies to people who held positions such as the one Snowden did as a contractor for the National Security Agency. Legal experts say, however, that it provides no protection to him for two reasons.
First, they say, he did not expose the kinds of actions covered by whistle-blower protections illegal conduct, fraud, waste or abuse. Some people have argued that the programs revealed by Snowden are illegal or unconstitutional. For now, they are presumptively legal, given the assent of members of Congress and the special court known as FISA that oversees intelligence operations.
But suppose Snowdens supporters are right, and what he exposed was illegal conduct after all.
Then he would face a second problem: The Federal Whistle-blower Protection Act protects the public disclosure of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation only if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law. In other words, Snowden could claim whistle-blower protection only if he took his concerns to the NSAs inspector general or to a member of one of the congressional intelligence committees with the proper security clearances.
So according to the article, what Snowden chose to reveal would not fall under the cited legal protection, because he did not reveal "illegal conduct, fraud, waste or abuse". In other words, although he believed the NSA practices to be illegal / unconstitutional, they would not be deemed such because they are "presumptively legal". So he could have gone to Congress -- to the same Senators who have vigorously supported these activities -- and, even if they had given him any credence at all, even if they had not had him arrested on the spot -- his revelations would never have seen the light of day.
MADem
(135,425 posts)who sits on the INTEL OVERSIGHT subcommittee and could have gotten the guy an opportunity to testify, if that's what it took, without too much difficulty at all simply by putting him on the agenda. If ES was going to talk about classified programs, sources and methods, it might be in the context of a closed meeting, but make no mistake, he would be heard.
That would have been the sensible thing to have done. He would have gotten plenty of "credence" and his revelations would have gotten a hearing.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but really, what is the likelihood that the information about all this would have become public? Even Rand Paul is under rules that don't allow him to speak publicly about certain things, and we all know that Congress is highly unlikely to have initiated a discussion of the broad scope of these laws and how they are applied. That just would not have happened. There would have been closed hearings, a dog and pony show for the open hearing, and... nothing or next to nothing would have happened. At most, there would have been some tsk tsking by Congress on "overreach" by "some agents" and a couple of new regulations added and ta da! that would be the end of it.
Oh, except for prosecuting Snowden. You can be sure that would have happened, judging by what we have seen happen to previous whistle blowers in the intelligence area.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Is the idea to give every American--and the world--the ability to know, in detail, the sources,methods, and intelligence used by NSA and other agencies, or is the idea to be certain our government is operating in a constitutional fashion?
Why does he need public acclaim? Most people I know who see a wrong and want it righted do what they do to correct the wrong, not to gain "followers" and make money off of their efforts.
How many whistleblowers--I'm not talking about spies like Walker, Pollard and Hanssen--actually go to jail? Most don't, and the few that do (because they did something illegal along the way) don't do hard time. Let's have a list and some of their onerous sentences, shall we? How many are in Gitmo? How many buried under the Capitol?
Hyperbole only impresses acolytes, not regular people who are grounded in reality.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)You seem to think that we are talking about details of sources, methods and the intelligence itself? I was referring to the laws, and to how they are being used. For example, we now know about the PRISM program that allows our government to scoop up all phone call metadata. We did not know that before. Knowing this does not give us details of sources, nor of the intelligence itself. It does give us some information regarding the methods, although even that is under dispute (e.g., "direct access" or not? there seems to be some debate about that). Anyway: yes, the information on the laws and how they are applied needs to be public, or else we cannot have an informed discussion about the laws and how they are interpreted.
I never said Snowden needs public acclaim.
I never claimed Snowden would be sent to Gitmo or be buried under the Capitol, although yes the thread has that in its title so I guess you could stretch my remarks to assume I am on board with that statement (I am not). However, I think Snowden's punishment would be harsh, more harsh than that given to other whistle blowers, more in line with Bradley Manning's punishment (which we don't know how much more time Manning will get, but his punishment has already been harsh). But that is a side issue for me: Snowden did what he did, and for now he is not in the US and has asylum, so the question is moot for the present.
In the meantime, Snowden's actions have resulted in a lot more information becoming available about these spying programs, and how they may affect even US citizens. I am glad the discussion has opened up, and that would not have happened if he had "gone through channels", IMO.
MADem
(135,425 posts)My response was "Why does it need to become public?" He's not talking about general issues, he's making specific accusations about specific programs, and not providing much proof save his say-so and Greenwald's eager cheerleading from the sidelines.
Every piece of classified material Snowden throws to the wind gets him in more hot water. He's the master of his fate on that score--he's digging his own hole. We pretty much have to assume that everything he has on him is now property of the PRC and Pootie's gang.
He could have gone to his pal Rand, but he decided to go to China and Russia, those bastions of liberty, to make his point.
He's a big boy--he knows what he's getting into; and he keeps wielding that shovel, putting some welly in it, like it's gonna get better if he runs his mouth more and more. He might want to buckle down and work on his Russian language skills, I think he's gonna be there for awhile.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and you were the one who said "Is the idea to give every American--and the world--the ability to know, in detail, the sources,methods, and intelligence used by NSA and other agencies".
Snowden's revelations did let us know in detail some of the methods used. It did not give us sources or specific intelligence.
Then you ask, "or is the idea to be certain our government is operating in a constitutional fashion?". Yes, I would say that is the idea. And that is exactly what has come into stark relief since Snowden revealed what he revealed.
Your response also referred to Snowden needing public acclaim, and implied he is making money off his efforts rather than trying to right a wrong. Now it is possible you are conflating Snowden and Greenwald there; otherwise, I have seen no evidence that Snowden is benefitting financially from his disclosures. In fact he left a pretty sweet gig in order to reveal this information. Seems to me if money was his motivation he would have stayed where he was and kept his mouth shut.
But the argument regarding motivation is a side issue. What his motivations were, what Greenwald's motivations were, are really quite irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is indeed: is our government operating in a constitutional fashion? In my opinion the answer is clearly No.
Your ad hominems at the end of this post do nothing to further your argument. "his pal Rand" "those bastions of liberty" "if he runs his mouth more and more". Yawn.
MADem
(135,425 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that there is no need for the public to know about secret laws and how they are applied?
Interesting.
MADem
(135,425 posts)with people not cleared to receive it.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and it is certainly one that has merit. Some of us think there are issues that may override that, such as when the government is conducting massive surveillance of its citizens. Yes, yes, I know there is disagreement as to how much surveillance is being done; but isn't that the point of public discussion? How are we to know if we are in agreement with the laws if we are not allowed to know what they are, or how court decisions are arrived at?
christx30
(6,241 posts)of this quasi-legal program if the people on the intelligence commitee are either gung-ho about the program, or are being lied to?
RC
(25,592 posts)Even if a secret court is making decisions in secret, Star Chamber style, and interpreting the law to suit its own purpose? Even if this secret court is making its own law? Where is the Constitution, that they are abusing, in all this? Where are "We the people..." in all this? Besides being the targets?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_type_of_government_does_the_United_States_have
Where are the people in all this? Why are so many people on DU OK with the spying?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he has stated they 'put me and my family through five years of Hell'. Even though they knew he had broken no rules, they persecuted him for five years, filed false charges against him which carried decades of prison time, and then after costing him a decades long distinguished career in the Military and and in Intelligence, the day before they had to PROVE their allegations, they dropped all phony charges against him.
He has some advice for Whistle Blowers in this country now.
Yes, Whistle Blowers should 'trust' such a system where there is no protection for them!
Igel
(35,300 posts)They can be twisted and manipulated to serve extra-legal ends.
The seed was planted. It was watered and nurtured. It's not in bloom yet, but give it time.
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)by encouraging him to non-selectively report info that has nothing to do with "whistle-blowing". Snowden will be "buried under" Greenwald's mountain of cash that he anticipates getting for his books by using this guy.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Snowden contacted Greenwald in the first place, and from what I know it appears that Snowden is the one who chose what to hand over to Greenwald.
If you have factual information contradicting that, please supply a link or two. Thanks.
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)YOU go right ahead.
The result is clear and the hyperbole of someone being "buried under the Capitol" is complete bullshit. But meanwhile it's common knowledge that Greenwald already plans to publish his NSA book in March 2014.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...the "buried under the Capitol" remarks, so that is simply a diversion by you. Also, we all know Greenwald is writing a book about this; again, that is simply a diversion. It has no bearing on the question at hand: none, zip, zero, zilch.
YOU are the one who made the assertion that "Greenwald did him a disservice by encouraging him to non-selectively report info". All I did was ask you to support your assertion, since I have not seen any indication of that in any of the numerous articles and discussions I have read on this topic.
You don't want to supply the requested information, no problem. Then I and everyone else reading this thread will know exactly how much weight they should give to your unsupported assertion: none, zip, zero, zilch.
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)that has been surrounding this whole fucking case from day one. If you don't want to accept the FACT that someone plans to make money off of this rather than do it for "king and country", then that is your problem.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...you cannot support your assertion that "Greenwald did him a disservice by encouraging him to non-selectively report info".
Thanks for verifying.
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that "Greenwald did him a disservice by encouraging him to non-selectively report info".
You are either unable or unwilling to support your assertion.
It's really very simple. That Whooshing you hear has nothing to do with me.
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)like China is exactly what I am talking about. The Chinese are the biggest copyright violators in the world, let alone purveyors of a huge amount of products that we import that have been found defective and dangerous (including foods, knock-off electronics, etc).
Meanwhile Greenwald himself is still at it.
If he had revealed proof of innocent U.S. citizens in the U.S. who were dragged into something that had to do with the U.S. activities with respect to China as an example, then he would have a case. But here it is months later and all we've had was alot of boogyman hyperbole.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and failing to support your assertion: "Greenwald did him a disservice by encouraging him to non-selectively report info".
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that you presented as a fact. You cannot support your statement. Therefore it is pointless to discuss other issues with you, since you cannot support your claims that you present as "the facts".
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The operators of these personas aren't paid to be persuadable.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...on the other hand, I don't think certain things should be allowed to stand. I have used Ignore a couple of times, but overall I think it is better to see what others have to say, and to engage in discussion rather than let things go unchallenged. My purpose in pursuing this particular issue is to expose clearly that the poster is unable to support his assertion. Also, it amuses me.
MADem
(135,425 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Oh my God!!! I'm sure that's a shock to someone out there. And I bet whoever this is a shock to will be the first one lining up to buy this book.
Oh my Lord. But kudos on trying to have the discussion. It was a valiant effort though I'm sure that you realize by now that you COMPLETELY wasted your time.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that "Snowden contacted Greenwald first", is that Snowden contacted Greenwald rather than the other way around.
Yes you are right, Snowden started by contacting the WaPo.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Snowden's Dad is an idiot, just like his son.
did ANY of you read the WHOLE transcript?
peace, kp
tridim
(45,358 posts)For the same reason I don't listen to Alex Jones.
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)yet certainly Greenwald's "capital" for book sales will probably bury him.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)The transcript is worth reading in understanding Mr. Snowden's clever turn of phrase
Obama stated Edward should have approached the congressional oversight committees - yet Dianne Feinstein (D-Wealth) a committee member has already declared him guilty of treason!
DC has overcharged him (Espionage?! LOL) and DC is accusing him of treason and lack of patriotism before a trial
DC is already burying him under the Capitol
Igel
(35,300 posts)Only spoken.
When written, you have to know what the sounds are. If it was a one-off comment, I'd have gone with "capital", perhaps. But if it were a continued allusion, I'd have written it "Capitol" the first time and "capital" when it referred to the government as a whole.
However, the allusion is screwed. One buries the execrable outside of holy ground. One buries the over-achieving pious on holy ground. The gifted, the high-ranking faithful are in Westminster, buried in catacombs under monasteries, are interred in the cathedrals.
To place Snowden under the Capitol or even the capital would be to show him great posthumous honor. Then again, much of what Snowden pere offers is like that. It's easy to see where his son gets his, um, marvellous traits.
T
R
E
Ex x = apple.
B
A
T
x x = ...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Unholy of grounds.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)intelligent, concerned and not bought by anybody.
Everything he says makes sense if you look at the video of the interview with Steph.
Lon Snowden
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--it's certainly not "loony."
I can accept that the dad is not so media savvy and his comments may be confused, even scatterbrained at some point.
He's a regular guy and I give him the benefit of the doubt. He is intelligent. He's been caught up in something he never bargained for.
These times would make anyone loony.
tridim
(45,358 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I don't equate either Ed or Lon Snowden with those two.
I've heard all four of them speak at this point. They're all intelligent. But only two are badly twisted.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Is 20 or 30 minutes all you need to judge the trustworthiness of a fleeing criminal?
And no, Alex Jones and Rand Paul are NOT intelligent, they are delusional numbskulls.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--from the perspective of political & social psychology. ("A study of the foundations, dynamics, and outcomes of political behavior using cognitive and social explanations'). I say the Snowdens are to be generally trusted in what they say, unlike Gen Alexander, Clapper and Co. I feel qualified to form an opinion at this point.
"Delusional numbskulls" usually get nowhere. You have to be fairly intelligent to game the system and work it to the level that Jones & Paul have. Call it shrewd or conniving, a twisted kind of smarts, if you prefer that to the general term, 'intelligence'. Delusional numbskulls are typically those who follow J&P.
But this is pointless. If you think Snowden is a criminal, then we're too far apart....
Cya.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Dads spouts the same alarmist hooey as sonny boy. The actual "problem" they're both so exercised about is named Barack Obama.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)why Edward Snowden could not have disclosed what he had... had he
remained in the U.S. ..... sad as that is.
kpete
(71,984 posts)many here agree with Bob BOB SCHIEFFER:
About Snowden, the tough, adversarial TV reporter asked Hayden: "Do you think he is a traitor, would you go that far?" He then ended his prayer session devoted to Hayden with this exchange about the recent proposal in the House to ban the NSA's bulk collection of phone records:
"BOB SCHIEFFER: But would the National security be damaged if that happened?
"GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.
"BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, General, it's always good to have you."
Bob Schieffer is a more slavish, shameless spokesman for the NSA than anyone actually employed by that agency. But what one really finds here is a reverence for military officials like Michael Hayden so extreme that it's actually uncomfortable to watch.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/12/michael-hayden-nsa-media-reverence
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)a few months ago...so thank you for this OP.
Michael Hayden is extreme. Interesting what he said about the bulk
collection of phone records. To ban them would damage national
security...it would be almost fun to research ol' Hayden and find out
if there's a conflict of interest in his background with a government
contracted security company doing the spying.
We've been lied to so much particularly during the last 13 years that
unfortunately my first knee jerk is always distrust. However, I think
the government has earned that.
HA! I just read the link (always do before I hit "send" ..well, well,
well ol' Hayden and Scheiffer couldn't have been more dishonest in
failing to disclose all the facts. BUT, somehow, they are allowed to
label Edward Snowden a traitor! Amazing.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)He just chose not to.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)No public pressure or outrage to see it changed. The ICWPA is designed to keep secrets secret.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that Edward Snowden should decide--a dropout who is a coward--is ridiculous.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...wow, I'm convinced. Not.
You are right that reasonable people can disagree, but then again, reasonable people tend to avoid ad hominem attacks when presenting their arguments.
Snowden is a "high school dropout". He claims he was ill for the last few months of his senior year so he had to drop out, and decided to complete his GED rather than go back to school for his diploma. Whatever he did, he clearly acquired enough technical expertise to be hired by some of the most technically demanding outfits around, including the CIA and the NSA and/or contractors who served them. He was able to get a clearance. Given all of that, your slur about him being a dropout must also slime the very agencies he worked for. If being a so-called dropout is that bad, than anyone who would hire a dropout must be equally bad. Myself, I don't think the dropout thing carries any weight at all, beyond its usefulness for mudslinging and avoiding dealing with actual issues.
As for calling him a coward, I can see why some see him as a coward for not coming back to face the music. Myself, I don't blame him a bit. But in either case, it is 100% irrelevant to the issues he has brought forward.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--we all know that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1awake
(1,494 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and he was persecuted for five years, had his long, honorable career destroyed, lost everything, had fake charges filed against him and nothing was done about the crimes he reported.
Snowden did exactly the right thing.
millennialmax
(331 posts)kpete
(71,984 posts)millennialmax
(331 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and nothing was done about the crimes they reported.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)that's the way it works.
Response to millennialmax (Reply #30)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)He'd do better in court than my husband.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)So now everything's based on fear of the evil shadow government.
Blah blah blah.
Let him learn to love Russia, then. He made his bed.
Igel
(35,300 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)speculation, made up crap, assumption, and attempting to read tarot cards of what MIGHT have happened is Snowden actually had gone the established, legal route of whistleblowing. Fact is, now this resembles more of the reality coming from the Snowden is a hero crowd...."Snowden couldn't be a real whistleblower because......."
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's chilling how immediately and relentlessly the smear machine engages, and how hateful and bloodthirsty its messages are, even in a thread about a father's comments about his son's fate.
This father is correct that his son would never receive justice from this government. But leave it to the smear brigade to turn this thread into a weird, celebratory attack party.
Americans are finally waking up to what a vicious, authoritarian government these corporate vultures have actually built around us. They see it not only in the unthinkable mass spying on its own citizens, but also in the chilling, hateful, ubiquitous propaganda machine right out of 1984.
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)The transcript's worth reading, but the haters won't do it
Mr. Snowden made a good point about Edward's chances of 'going to congressional intelligence committees' as the WH says he should have done...yeah when committee members like Feinstein are already calling him a traitor, that's gonna work out!
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)If I were Skinner, I'd have thrown all the propaganda bots out a long time ago, but it's his site. If he wants to let them poison discourse here, that's his choice.
At least we have ignore. So we can block the propaganda spam and converse with real humans.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's chilling how immediately and relentlessly the smear machine engages, and how hateful and bloodthirsty its messages are, even in a thread about a father's comments about his son's fate.
This father is correct that his son would never receive justice from this government. But leave it to the smear brigade to turn this thread into a weird, celebratory attack party. "
Yeah, "attack," is only reserved for you and your spin on other people's opinions, right?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)That convinces me that they're arguments are based more on emotions and less on evidence.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)unless, of course, it's a job.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Well said!
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)But dad is OK with him running off to two communist countries to share information he took an oath to protect?
leftstreet
(36,106 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)leftstreet
(36,106 posts)Class has been abolished in China!
Capitalism has been banned !!111
And what was the other 'communist country?'
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)economy in the world and when it passes us it will be the largest.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)YES!
Are the people in the country free to say whatever they want? NO!
And don't tell anyone your sexual orientation for fear you will go to jail.
YES, China and Russia are fine examples of society! FINE EXAMPLES!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)It has nothing to do with being 'communist'
Communism is a state run form of capitalism.
Capitalist does not equal democratic.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)All of those things you listed happen in plenty on non Communist countries too.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)You can deny it all you want!
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)do not practice Communism. Chairman Mao is probably turning over in his grave right now.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)1
a: a theory advocating elimination of private property
b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2
capitalized
a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d: communist systems collectively
See communism defined for English-language learners » http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/communism
all land in China technically belongs to the state
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/08/14/asia-pacific/beijing-cracks-down-on-bizarre-apartment-top-villa/#.UgsNmaxELbp
Yeah, I think China is still a communist state by definition!
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Communism in practice is state directed, ours is corporate directed.
But your point is essentially correct.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)One minute we are boycotting the Russian Olympics because of the government, the next we are praising them for Snowden.
Which is it? If we are such good friends with Russia, why didn't they hand over Snowden? and Why isn't Obama meeting with Putin?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)the Snowden's have a family tradition of being assholes!
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Really cute!
Arkana
(24,347 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)as he heads off to visit his son in a country that murders whistleblowers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023386518
BumRushDaShow
(128,851 posts)Peacetrain
(22,875 posts)in the whole story...Hyperbole
"He would have been buried under the capital. And we would have never known the truth. "
I saw another story with his Dad saying some of the goofiest stuff.. He does his son no favors
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)And if grasshoppers carried machine guns the birds wouldn't fuck with them.
Let's stick to the facts, shall we?
I'm still waiting for the doom and gloom collapse of America the Republicans and TPs promised us 5 years ago.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Too much TV rots the brain. Exhibit A.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)The security state perverts like Feinstein and King would have hushed up anything. Classification is a joke, it has nothing to do with security, only keeping politically embarrassing info from the public, and covering up illegal acts by top officials.
The cockroaches must have light shed on them, and reform must happen.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We never would have known. Snowden would have been put away silently, and none of us would have known.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Same crap we keep hearing here - "they would have killed him!"
No, they wouldn't. It's just a convenient way to excuse his being on the run.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Daddy Traitor is as STOOPID, in his little fantasy world, as Eddie "The New Russian" Traitor!
Be proud Daddy! Be very proud of your Russian Lap Dog son!
Russia...what a great country to pick to live in...one of THE premiere Human AND Civil Rights abusers!!!!!!! Way to go Traitor Eddie!
kpete
(71,984 posts)Snowden-haters are helping to point the finger in the wrong direction
FEIN: Yes. Let's go that. And what he said was, oh, Mr. Snowden should have gone to the congressional oversight committees. The congressional oversight committees have gone on record, Dianne Feinstein: he's guilty of treason. These were the committees that knew for seven years what was going on and refused to disclose it to the American people. The best was some cryptic statements.
If the American knew what was going on, they would be stunned.
And Edward Snowden is supposed to go to them? That seems rather implausible, because they were the ones who were responsible for the secrecy.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-lon-snowden-donald-trump/storynew?id=19926953&page=3
again, read the transcript, be aware, learn...
why are WE always for or against?
Why can't we just be seekers of truth and justice?
..............................
Private Manning gives me my MAIN thinking for why Snowden can NEVER come home.
(I know, I know he was military...apples and oranges, bla bla bla)
Manning & Snowden are both being used to scare anyone interested in MORE info that is
hidden under the name of "national security"
They are determined to ruin Manning's life (& SCARE ALL WHISTLEBLOWERS IN THE PROCESS)
BECAUSE along with some other docs, he revealed these:
a list of 10 revelations disclosed by Mannings leaked documents that offer insight into the breadth and scope of what he revealed, help explain his motivation for leaking, and provide context for the ongoing trial. The list, in no particular order, is far from comprehensive but encompasses some of the most significant information brought to light by the leaked documents.
There were 109,032 violent deaths recorded in Iraq between 2004 and 2009, including 66,081 civilians. Leaked records from the Afghan War separately revealed coalition troops alleged role in killing at least 195 civilians in unreported incidents, one reportedly involving U.S. service members machine-gunning a bus, wounding or killing 15 passengers.
The U.S. Embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed genetically modified crops, with U.S. diplomats effectively working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto.
British and American officials colluded in a plan to mislead the British Parliament over a proposed ban on cluster bombs.
In Baghdad in 2007, a U.S. Army helicopter gunned down a group of civilians, including two Reuters news staff.
U.S. special operations forces were conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan despite sustained public denials and statements to the contrary by U.S. officials.
A leaked diplomatic cable provided evidence that during an incident in 2006, U.S. troops in Iraq executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence. The disclosure of this cable was later a significant factor in the Iraqi governments refusal to grant U.S. troops immunity from prosecution beyond 2011, which led to U.S. troops withdrawing from the country.
A NATO coalition in Afghanistan was using an undisclosed black unit of special operations forces to hunt down targets for death or detention without trial. The unit was revealed to have had a kill-or-capture list featuring details of more than 2,000 senior figures from the Taliban and al-Qaida, but it had in some cases mistakenly killed men, women, children, and Afghan police officers.
The U.S. threatened the Italian government in an attempt to influence a court case involving the indictment of CIA agents over the kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric. Separately, U.S. officials were revealed to have pressured Spanish prosecutors to dissuade them from investigating U.S. torture allegations, secret extraordinary rendition flights, and the killing of a Spanish journalist by U.S. troops in Iraq.
In apparent violation of a 1946 U.N. convention, Washington initiated a spying campaign in 2009 that targeted the leadership of the U.N. by seeking to gather top officials private encryption keys, credit card details, and biometric data.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)There's not a single member of any party in Congress who wouldn't side with Snowden, the whistle-blower?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--Whole lotta CYA going on. He would be scapegoated and a complicit congress would do nada about it.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)No matter what he "could" have done, nobody would have helped him! So he "had" to run to China then Russia because the "evil" U.S. government would have done him in because we all know just how bad the "government" is, and how great a job China and Russia are doing when it comes to making sure all their citizens "rights" are protected!
It seems no matter what, the Snowden, Greenwald loyalists will never admit there is anything "fishy" about what happened with Snowden.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)there's never been a defector to Russia before . . . .
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)madrchsod
(58,162 posts)"do`t do the crime if you can't do the time"
greenwald in brazil telling everything snowden told him and snowden in russia being debriefed.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)About the operation, he could have still been working, he chose not to do so and now he has charges.
If, if, if, too late for if now.