Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,984 posts)
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:36 AM Aug 2013

Snowden'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
137 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Snowden's Dad: If Edward Would Have Stayed In the USA: "He would have been buried under the capital" (Original Post) kpete Aug 2013 OP
He wouldn't have gotten whistleblower status, obviously Recursion Aug 2013 #1
Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming! usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #60
You're kind of a one trick pony, aren't you? struggle4progress Aug 2013 #136
"Legal"? Only in that it was written down and passed by a legislature Demeter Aug 2013 #73
Yes, "written down and passed by a legislature" describes "laws" Recursion Aug 2013 #77
Unconstitutional trumps legal Demeter Aug 2013 #93
I'm going to have to copy this post. Benton D Struckcheon Aug 2013 #94
Justice Roberts ssems to be in control of most things Rosa Luxemburg Aug 2013 #127
It's been noted--hence, he's not an independent judge Demeter Aug 2013 #128
The program's legality is obviously in dispute blackspade Aug 2013 #100
He wouldn't have been protected because he didn't bother to become a whistleblower. msanthrope Aug 2013 #2
Thomas Drake and others have used that act MannyGoldstein Aug 2013 #8
"How'd that work out for them?" ProSense Aug 2013 #12
2005 is irrelevant, ant the Tamm case is irrelevant because the programs themselves had not JDPriestly Aug 2013 #61
What? ProSense Aug 2013 #67
And here is why I object to the surveillance programs no matter who runs them JDPriestly Aug 2013 #119
Does the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #9
It does protect contractors. What it does not protect is release to the public--Snowden would have msanthrope Aug 2013 #13
Thanks very much... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #17
He could have gone to his favorite Senator, Rand Paul... MADem Aug 2013 #28
Yes, he could have done that... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #33
Why would it have to become public? MADem Aug 2013 #48
Why should what become public? ljm2002 Aug 2013 #64
You were the one who said MADem Aug 2013 #68
Yes, I said that... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #78
You brought up the public issue, not me. Yawn, indeed. nt MADem Aug 2013 #82
So you seem to be of the opinion... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #84
I seem to be of the opinion that classified material should not be shared MADem Aug 2013 #88
Okay, I understand that position... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #96
And how does congress provide oversight christx30 Aug 2013 #114
Even if it is procured illegally by th egovernment? Even if it runs afoul of the 4th Amendment? RC Aug 2013 #103
Yes, he should have done what Drake and Binney did. Drake followed the rules to the last letter and sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #37
And that is the problem with some kinds of government. Igel Aug 2013 #49
Greenwald did him a disservice BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #3
And you know this how? ljm2002 Aug 2013 #10
If you have "factual info" refuting what I wrote BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #15
I said nothing at all about... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #23
My remark underscores the hyperbole BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #42
In other words... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #44
In other words, it all flew over your head. Whoosh! nt BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #51
No, I asked you to support your assertion... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #69
Anything to do with FOREIGN spying BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #83
You are still evading the issue... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #86
You have evaded the facts. No help for you. Cry me a river. BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #89
No, I have questioned one statement you made... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #97
Dude, put the Snowden-basher-bots on ignore. backscatter712 Aug 2013 #90
I understand many are not persuadable on these issues... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #98
+1 blackspade Aug 2013 #107
Doesn't Greenwald also have a financial interest in the movie that filmmaker is crafting? nt MADem Aug 2013 #31
Good, I can't wait to read it. sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #38
"Greenwald already plans to publish his NSA book in March 2014" ROFL!!! Number23 Aug 2013 #131
He went to the Washington post first..nt Jesus Malverde Aug 2013 #75
What I meant by my remark... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #81
Proof that Rand Paul style libertarianism destroys minds. tridim Aug 2013 #4
wow, kpete Aug 2013 #5
I stopped reading at "..buried under the Capital"... tridim Aug 2013 #7
Where ABC seems to miss the difference between "Capital" and "Capitol" BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #19
Keep reading. You'll sound less uninformed leftstreet Aug 2013 #40
It's a pun that can't be written. Igel Aug 2013 #56
I would argue that the Congressional building is the most blackspade Aug 2013 #108
Snowden's dad comes across as marions ghost Aug 2013 #18
Not really--found his Fox interviews to be on the verge of loony. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #24
Check out this one --Lon with Steph-- marions ghost Aug 2013 #50
Do you believe Alex Jones and Rand paul "come across as intelligent"? tridim Aug 2013 #25
Sorry but-- marions ghost Aug 2013 #55
How many total minutes have you heard Eddie and Father speak? tridim Aug 2013 #111
Other input and research goes into it marions ghost Aug 2013 #116
The nut didn't fall far from the tree, did it? ucrdem Aug 2013 #35
Excellent! Thank you. Bookmarking. The interview explains very simply snappyturtle Aug 2013 #6
Apparently and sad to see- kpete Aug 2013 #11
Scheiffer is the living example of bias. I had to quit watching him snappyturtle Aug 2013 #34
Don't forget Cheney and Ari Fleischer and Peter King! sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #39
Well, he could have disclosed under the Intelligence Community Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1998 msanthrope Aug 2013 #14
Which would have just kept it under wraps. NuclearDem Aug 2013 #16
Some secrets should be secret. Reasonable people can disagree about what those secrets are, but msanthrope Aug 2013 #22
"a dropout who is a coward"... ljm2002 Aug 2013 #121
No real protections there marions ghost Aug 2013 #20
No...we all don't know that. nt msanthrope Aug 2013 #21
Of course, history clearly shows how our government feels about whistleblowers. n/t 1awake Aug 2013 #32
Like Drake did? How did that work for him?? Drake 'disclosed under the ICWP Act of 1998 sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #41
That's a chance he should've taken. eom millennialmax Aug 2013 #26
like this guy? kpete Aug 2013 #27
There's no violin tiny enough. eom millennialmax Aug 2013 #30
How about Drake and Binney? They did everything according to the book and were destroyed sabrina 1 Aug 2013 #43
Yep marions ghost Aug 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author HangOnKids Aug 2013 #115
***FAIL*** - Same excuse many browns\blacks can give for US justice system uponit7771 Aug 2013 #29
+1 bravenak Aug 2013 #36
Fear-based speculation. He didn't TRY to be a whistleblower. CakeGrrl Aug 2013 #45
A product of a proud American educational system. n/t Igel Aug 2013 #58
...an that is exactly the whole of it Sheepshank Aug 2013 #120
The propaganda is creepy beyond words. woo me with science Aug 2013 #46
+1 leftstreet Aug 2013 #52
Thank you. n/t totodeinhere Aug 2013 #62
And this is why we need to encourage aggressive use of the ignore function. backscatter712 Aug 2013 #72
You're right the claim about being "buried" is "creepy beyond words." ProSense Aug 2013 #95
Yes and it is really creepy to see isn't it? nt Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #122
I like how some proudly say they didn't read it and then call them names. neverforget Aug 2013 #124
Yep. People with way too much time/concern on their hands wtmusic Aug 2013 #134
Plus one! Enthusiast Aug 2013 #135
Yeah, they would dig up the capital to bury him. liberal N proud Aug 2013 #47
What 'communist countries?' leftstreet Aug 2013 #53
I suppose you are going to tell me China is not Communist! liberal N proud Aug 2013 #59
LOL yes the Chinese worker is the vanguard of society leftstreet Aug 2013 #63
It's Communist in name only. Actually it has the second largest capitalist totodeinhere Aug 2013 #65
Do they oppress their citizens? liberal N proud Aug 2013 #66
That means they are authoritarian or totalitarian. blackspade Aug 2013 #112
All that is true but you called then Communist, not oppressors. totodeinhere Aug 2013 #118
China still has a very active Communist party. liberal N proud Aug 2013 #125
I did not deny that they have a Communist party. What I am saying is that they totodeinhere Aug 2013 #126
LOL liberal N proud Aug 2013 #129
Communism: liberal N proud Aug 2013 #137
Communism in a form of capitalism blackspade Aug 2013 #110
Russia's not Communist--at least not anymore. Arkana Aug 2013 #71
This is fucking hilarious liberal N proud Aug 2013 #113
Seems,,, Cryptoad Aug 2013 #54
Love the three commas HangOnKids Aug 2013 #76
Talk about your fucking hyperbole. Arkana Aug 2013 #70
"Hyperbole" and irony ProSense Aug 2013 #79
And this sad affair BumRushDaShow Aug 2013 #99
Nope.. and this is the kind of thing that makes me lose faith Peacetrain Aug 2013 #74
Really 'Dad'? SCVDem Aug 2013 #80
What a bunch of horseshit shawn703 Aug 2013 #85
He's right. The American people woule never have known LittleBlue Aug 2013 #87
+1000000 This is the truth and the relevant point. woo me with science Aug 2013 #123
Democrats Would Have Buried Snowden - My How Far We Have Sunk cantbeserious Aug 2013 #91
Hyperbolic lame excuse to avoid a trial. CakeGrrl Aug 2013 #92
I can see where the kid got his brains. Scurrilous Aug 2013 #101
ROFLMAO! SoapBox Aug 2013 #102
Squirrels kpete Aug 2013 #104
So Senator Sanders would have betrayed him, too? pnwmom Aug 2013 #105
Too few marions ghost Aug 2013 #117
It's amazing isn't it Andy823 Aug 2013 #132
Of course it's because pnwmom Aug 2013 #133
Snowden's Dad should be ashamed. He raised a buffoon. And a Russian Spy. MjolnirTime Aug 2013 #106
that would be a good trick to bury someone under the capital... madrchsod Aug 2013 #109
If Edward had performed on his job and had nit stolen files and revealed information Thinkingabout Aug 2013 #130

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
1. He wouldn't have gotten whistleblower status, obviously
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:40 AM
Aug 2013

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)
60. Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:33 PM
Aug 2013

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)
136. You're kind of a one trick pony, aren't you?
Tue Aug 13, 2013, 06:39 AM
Aug 2013

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)
73. "Legal"? Only in that it was written down and passed by a legislature
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:56 PM
Aug 2013

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)
77. Yes, "written down and passed by a legislature" describes "laws"
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:01 PM
Aug 2013

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)
93. Unconstitutional trumps legal
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:15 PM
Aug 2013

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)
94. I'm going to have to copy this post.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:16 PM
Aug 2013

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.

blackspade

(10,056 posts)
100. The program's legality is obviously in dispute
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:23 PM
Aug 2013

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)
2. He wouldn't have been protected because he didn't bother to become a whistleblower.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:41 AM
Aug 2013

He had the law available to him--Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, but he chose to be a coward.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. "How'd that work out for them?"
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:04 AM
Aug 2013

They weren't "been buried under the capital."

No charges for man who leaked surveillance program

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has dropped its investigation into a former department attorney who tipped off the media about the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program.

The department informed Thomas Tamm’s 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 “didn’t 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


“He’s in for a pretty overwhelming investigation,” Tamm, now a criminal defense attorney in Rockville, Md., told POLITICO in an interview. “I think the government will use a lot of their resources to try to find him.”

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 he’ll be able to put his life back together.” Tamm says he’d 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)
61. 2005 is irrelevant, ant the Tamm case is irrelevant because the programs themselves had not
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:34 PM
Aug 2013

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)
67. What?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:47 PM
Aug 2013

"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:

In 2007, then-Senator Obama criticized the Bush administration for monitoring Americans who had done nothing wrong:

“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.

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309). On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836). On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

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)
119. And here is why I object to the surveillance programs no matter who runs them
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:10 PM
Aug 2013

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)
9. Does the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:59 AM
Aug 2013

...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.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
17. Thanks very much...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:18 AM
Aug 2013

...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 Snowden’s 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 NSA’s 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)
28. He could have gone to his favorite Senator, Rand Paul...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:35 AM
Aug 2013

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)
33. Yes, he could have done that...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:40 AM
Aug 2013

...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)
48. Why would it have to become public?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:20 PM
Aug 2013

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)
64. Why should what become public?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:36 PM
Aug 2013

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)
68. You were the one who said
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:49 PM
Aug 2013
what is the likelihood that the information about all this would have become public?

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)
78. Yes, I said that...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:04 PM
Aug 2013

...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.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
84. So you seem to be of the opinion...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:07 PM
Aug 2013

...that there is no need for the public to know about secret laws and how they are applied?

Interesting.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
88. I seem to be of the opinion that classified material should not be shared
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:11 PM
Aug 2013

with people not cleared to receive it.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
96. Okay, I understand that position...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:19 PM
Aug 2013

...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)
114. And how does congress provide oversight
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:33 PM
Aug 2013

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)
103. Even if it is procured illegally by th egovernment? Even if it runs afoul of the 4th Amendment?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:40 PM
Aug 2013

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?


Although many people might say it's a democracy, the United States of America is actually a federal constitutional republic, which is a political system where the supreme power is held by the citizens who are entitled to vote for officials (such as the president) and representatives (such as senators and members of the House of Representatives) responsible to them (the people).
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)
37. Yes, he should have done what Drake and Binney did. Drake followed the rules to the last letter and
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:45 AM
Aug 2013

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)
49. And that is the problem with some kinds of government.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:23 PM
Aug 2013

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)
3. Greenwald did him a disservice
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:46 AM
Aug 2013

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)
10. And you know this how?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:01 AM
Aug 2013

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)
15. If you have "factual info" refuting what I wrote
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:12 AM
Aug 2013

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)
23. I said nothing at all about...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:26 AM
Aug 2013

...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)
42. My remark underscores the hyperbole
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:52 AM
Aug 2013

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)
44. In other words...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:55 AM
Aug 2013

...you cannot support your assertion that "Greenwald did him a disservice by encouraging him to non-selectively report info".

Thanks for verifying.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
69. No, I asked you to support your assertion...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:53 PM
Aug 2013

...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)
83. Anything to do with FOREIGN spying
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:06 PM
Aug 2013

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)
86. You are still evading the issue...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:10 PM
Aug 2013

...and failing to support your assertion: "Greenwald did him a disservice by encouraging him to non-selectively report info".

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
97. No, I have questioned one statement you made...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:21 PM
Aug 2013

...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)
90. Dude, put the Snowden-basher-bots on ignore.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:12 PM
Aug 2013

The operators of these personas aren't paid to be persuadable.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
98. I understand many are not persuadable on these issues...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:23 PM
Aug 2013

...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.

Number23

(24,544 posts)
131. "Greenwald already plans to publish his NSA book in March 2014" ROFL!!!
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 07:53 PM
Aug 2013

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.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
81. What I meant by my remark...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:05 PM
Aug 2013

...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)
4. Proof that Rand Paul style libertarianism destroys minds.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:47 AM
Aug 2013

Snowden's Dad is an idiot, just like his son.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
7. I stopped reading at "..buried under the Capital"...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:54 AM
Aug 2013

For the same reason I don't listen to Alex Jones.

BumRushDaShow

(128,851 posts)
19. Where ABC seems to miss the difference between "Capital" and "Capitol"
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:20 AM
Aug 2013

yet certainly Greenwald's "capital" for book sales will probably bury him.

leftstreet

(36,106 posts)
40. Keep reading. You'll sound less uninformed
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:48 AM
Aug 2013

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)
56. It's a pun that can't be written.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:29 PM
Aug 2013

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 = ...

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
18. Snowden's dad comes across as
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:19 AM
Aug 2013

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

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
50. Check out this one --Lon with Steph--
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:24 PM
Aug 2013

--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.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
55. Sorry but--
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:28 PM
Aug 2013

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)
111. How many total minutes have you heard Eddie and Father speak?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:20 PM
Aug 2013

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)
116. Other input and research goes into it
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 03:18 PM
Aug 2013

--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)
35. The nut didn't fall far from the tree, did it?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:42 AM
Aug 2013

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)
6. Excellent! Thank you. Bookmarking. The interview explains very simply
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 10:53 AM
Aug 2013

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)
11. Apparently and sad to see-
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:03 AM
Aug 2013

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)
34. Scheiffer is the living example of bias. I had to quit watching him
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:41 AM
Aug 2013

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&quot ..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.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
14. Well, he could have disclosed under the Intelligence Community Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1998
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:11 AM
Aug 2013

He just chose not to.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
16. Which would have just kept it under wraps.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:15 AM
Aug 2013

No public pressure or outrage to see it changed. The ICWPA is designed to keep secrets secret.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
22. Some secrets should be secret. Reasonable people can disagree about what those secrets are, but
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:26 AM
Aug 2013

that Edward Snowden should decide--a dropout who is a coward--is ridiculous.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
121. "a dropout who is a coward"...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:05 PM
Aug 2013

...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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
41. Like Drake did? How did that work for him?? Drake 'disclosed under the ICWP Act of 1998
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:50 AM
Aug 2013

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.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
43. How about Drake and Binney? They did everything according to the book and were destroyed
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 11:53 AM
Aug 2013

and nothing was done about the crimes they reported.

Response to millennialmax (Reply #30)

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
45. Fear-based speculation. He didn't TRY to be a whistleblower.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:08 PM
Aug 2013

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.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
120. ...an that is exactly the whole of it
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:15 PM
Aug 2013

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)
46. The propaganda is creepy beyond words.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:09 PM
Aug 2013

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)
52. +1
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:25 PM
Aug 2013

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!

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
72. And this is why we need to encourage aggressive use of the ignore function.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:55 PM
Aug 2013

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)
95. You're right the claim about being "buried" is "creepy beyond words."
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:18 PM
Aug 2013

"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?

neverforget

(9,436 posts)
124. I like how some proudly say they didn't read it and then call them names.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 07:19 PM
Aug 2013

That convinces me that they're arguments are based more on emotions and less on evidence.

liberal N proud

(60,334 posts)
47. Yeah, they would dig up the capital to bury him.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:20 PM
Aug 2013




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)
63. LOL yes the Chinese worker is the vanguard of society
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:35 PM
Aug 2013

Class has been abolished in China!

Capitalism has been banned !!111



And what was the other 'communist country?'

totodeinhere

(13,058 posts)
65. It's Communist in name only. Actually it has the second largest capitalist
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:38 PM
Aug 2013

economy in the world and when it passes us it will be the largest.

liberal N proud

(60,334 posts)
66. Do they oppress their citizens?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:40 PM
Aug 2013

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)
112. That means they are authoritarian or totalitarian.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:20 PM
Aug 2013

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)
118. All that is true but you called then Communist, not oppressors.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 03:50 PM
Aug 2013

All of those things you listed happen in plenty on non Communist countries too.

totodeinhere

(13,058 posts)
126. I did not deny that they have a Communist party. What I am saying is that they
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 07:36 PM
Aug 2013

do not practice Communism. Chairman Mao is probably turning over in his grave right now.

liberal N proud

(60,334 posts)
137. Communism:
Wed Aug 14, 2013, 06:53 AM
Aug 2013
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
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)
110. Communism in a form of capitalism
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:15 PM
Aug 2013

Communism in practice is state directed, ours is corporate directed.

But your point is essentially correct.

liberal N proud

(60,334 posts)
113. This is fucking hilarious
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:31 PM
Aug 2013

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?




Peacetrain

(22,875 posts)
74. Nope.. and this is the kind of thing that makes me lose faith
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 12:59 PM
Aug 2013

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)
80. Really 'Dad'?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:05 PM
Aug 2013

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.

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
87. He's right. The American people woule never have known
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:11 PM
Aug 2013

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)
123. +1000000 This is the truth and the relevant point.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:56 PM
Aug 2013

We never would have known. Snowden would have been put away silently, and none of us would have known.

CakeGrrl

(10,611 posts)
92. Hyperbolic lame excuse to avoid a trial.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:14 PM
Aug 2013

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.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
102. ROFLMAO!
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:36 PM
Aug 2013

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)
104. Squirrels
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:43 PM
Aug 2013

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 Manning’s 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.

During the Iraq War, U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to thousands of field reports.
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 government’s 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)
105. So Senator Sanders would have betrayed him, too?
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 01:50 PM
Aug 2013

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)
117. Too few
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 03:23 PM
Aug 2013

--Whole lotta CYA going on. He would be scapegoated and a complicit congress would do nada about it.

Andy823

(11,495 posts)
132. It's amazing isn't it
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 08:10 PM
Aug 2013

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.

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
109. that would be a good trick to bury someone under the capital...
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 02:07 PM
Aug 2013

"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)
130. If Edward had performed on his job and had nit stolen files and revealed information
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 07:45 PM
Aug 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Snowden's Dad: If Edward ...