If somebody like Edward Snowden had procured files in 2001 that the BushCo NSA was spying

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

on the American people, Europeans and South Americans and passed it on to a journalist like Glen Greenwald would DUers be calling Snowden/Greenwald traitors?

Would they be defending Bush II?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. That would be different, of course.

Because RacismRandPaulPUMATrollRepublicanShill...

[kelliekat44]

68. They didn't have to produce files. They told us they were spying on us. nt

[Egalitarian Thug]

72. Completely different. Apples and oranges. n/t

[morningfog]

2. It is a small, but loud, minority who vehemently dislike Snowden and Greenwald.

For most of them, their hate has an expiration date. January 21, 2017.

[Autumn]

3. The most truthful, spin free statement I have seen

in days.

[leveymg]

4. It's the same 25-30 people who always rec up each other's posts. We fall for their Bullshit by

responding to their threads, which keeps these threads kicked at the top of GD. It makes it seem like a much larger group than it actually is.

I've stopped responding in most cases, as it just feeds into the vicious cycle.

[uponit7771]

25. You do realize this op has only 26 people who've rec'd it right?

[RetroLounge]

85. 51 now.

must be getting lonely on Authoritarians Underground.

RL

[Capt. Obvious]

110. 63 now

Can't stand that guy

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. Make me 56

[tblue]

27. Good thinking.

I even had one of them pm me to ask me to rec his ridiculous op.

[sabrina 1]

33. I agree. Which is why I skip those posts now. You know it's going to be the same old

talking points, different epithets, same spin. Best to not bother with them and stay focused on the issues.

[Scootaloo]

39. Already put a... prolific one on ignore

Not because of some sort of personal dislike or anything, but because Jesus Christ, it was like reading all the messages caught in my gmail spam filter!

[Savannahmann]

40. Often they kick and rec their own.

Leading it off as it were.

[liberal_at_heart]

73. That's why most of them are on my ignore list.

[Egalitarian Thug]

74. The reply to rec ratio is indicative. If you are here frequently enough and still have the capacity

to remember anything more than a phone number longer than a minute, you will see the same names over and over and over and over and over and over...

[Quantess]

78. Occasionally I think to myself,

"who the heck rec'd this tripe?" so I check to see the names, and it's usually no surprise. The usual suspects.

[Marr]

84. +1, I think I'll join you. /nt

[uponit7771]

22. Yes, when the purist left helps vote in the next reThug president who cut his horns and tucked his..

...tail in to appeal to the masses

[Scootaloo]

41. If they're the "purist left," are you the corrupt left?

Here's a thought. Maybe, just maybe, instead of you squatting there, sniffing your fingers and bitching about the left - yes, the whole left, you're not fooling anyone - you could... I dunno, pitch in? You realize that center-right democrats aren't the only option at this buffet, right? That you don't have to buy into the Republican media story that only well-triangulated center-right Democrats can compete against hard-right Republican goons, right? That we are in essence a heavy-left population in this nation that would respond really fucking well to a candidate who actually talked from that angle and carried through?

Now I'm not bagging on Obama here, so you can keep that one in the cozy warm cavity you keep it in. I think Obama is a step in the right direction, and that we can, and should do better in 2016. He's a little push to get the ball rolling back in the proper direction, not the pinnacle of achievement, kay?

[uponit7771]

97. This reply was not constructive. I'm pitching in by supporting a congress that is progressive with..

...dough and time and being informed.

Regards

[Scootaloo]

98. "The purist left helps vote in the next reThug president who cut his horns" is constructive?

Glad that you pitch in every couple of years in a meager way while damning the left. Makes a tear come to my eye - liquid pride.

[LondonReign2]

52. zzzzzzz

Same old same old stupid

[RetroLounge]

86. yawn

RL

[NuclearDem]

89. Maybe we stop picking shitty candidates.

That would be a huge plus.

[99Forever]

90. Want my vote Mr DINO?

Nominate an actual Democrat, not some worthless Turd Way, 1%er felating retread.

[Skittles]

30. CORRECT

[RainDog]

69. truth n/t

[AverageJoe90]

80. I would say the same thing, but this is actually true of hardcore SUPPORTERS of these two idiots.

Actually.....scratch that, Snowden's worse than an idiot; he gave information to rival nations that could be used against Americans, in the long run, at least.

To be truthful, I would suspect that the supposedly vehement criticism of spying from the good majority of hardcore Snowden supporters/backers, outside of the small progressive circles, like a fraction of the people here on DU, would suddenly cease.....the moment a Republican came into office(whenever that might be), especially if he was Rand Paul....(unless he was a "RINO" or something, maybe). And then it'd be all okay. You know why? Because back when Bush was in office, 90% of these people had absolutely NO problem with what Dubya was doing. NONE.

[LaydeeBug]

102. ^^^this^^^ nt

[MisterP]

5. naw--they love the Dems like the Tontons loved Doc, but don't care what the Dems actually PASS or DO

[grasswire]

6. it seems like DU was pretty happy with Olbermann's reports...

....that went after Bush with a vengeance.

[BlueCheese]

7. Heck, Greenwald himself was pretty popular among liberals back then. n/t

[sabrina 1]

34. Greenwald was and still is btw, very respected on the Left. It was the RIGHT who hated him

and still do.

[Recursion]

8. Since it was illegal before 2008, there's a huge difference

There's a huge difference between whistleblowing on illegal activity and leaking legal activity.

[grasswire]

9. if it's legal, why is it super-secret? nt

[Recursion]

12. So that the people we're snooping on don't find out how it works?

That seems so obvious to me I'm not sure how to answer it.

[uponit7771]

23. WTF kind of question is this?! ...bookmarking no doubt. The amount of dissidence it takes to ask

...this question is gob smacking

[grasswire]

26. dissidence?

gob smacking

[Celefin]

103. Dissidence: "Disagreement, as of opinion or belief; dissent"

Dissent is pretty essential when arguing against government secrecy... so uponit7771 would see it as a bad thing I guess.
Strange days.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. (cognitive) dissonance?

[AverageJoe90]

109. That's what he meant, I think. nt

[HardTimes99]

113. Cognitive dissidence :) - nt

[progressoid]

15. So if it's legal, it's right?

[uponit7771]

24. No, just not illegal and therefore doesn't fall under whistleblower status. If the public COULD have

...know or SHOULD have known then it's not a leak

Snowden stole info on something people know from years ago

He stole info and admitted he hired on to BAH for the sole purpose of doing so...

fuck em

[progressoid]

47. Neither the OP nor I said anything about whistle-blower status.

2 points for attempted diversion of the discussion though.

[uponit7771]

48. Never said you did say anything about whistleblower

[Recursion]

31. Of course not.

But it is -- wait for it -- legal.

Actual adult human beings outside of discussion boards are capable of dealing with situations that are neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil.

[progressoid]

46. Sweet Jesus, do you see how lame that argument is?

Separate but equal was legal. Prohibition was legal. And dozens of other awful things were legal. So actual adult human beings outside of discussion boards took action to deal with those injustices.

[treestar]

62. Presumably

At least tentatively. Disobeying the law because it is wrong should at least be a rare thing, no, in a republic such as ours? And we have civil ways of challenging laws as unconstitutional.

Plus the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Our country and its government really are rather civilized. There is little excuse for breaking a law on one's conscience alone. It was so in the Jim Crow era. But nowadays, no.

[progressoid]

63. "the Whistleblower Protection Act" Bwahahahaaa.

Congress and the White House made sure that the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act would NOT cover employees of national security or intelligence agencies.

Besides, I thought Snowden wasn't a whistleblower - just a thief and leaker.

[treestar]

76. He could have used avenues provided for

In fact, name another country that even has that.

[progressoid]

77. I would love to hear about these avenues.

[sabrina 1]

36. Lol, you forget that here and all over the Democratic forums, the vote to make legal

what was NOT legal in a blatant move to cover for the Bush criminals, caused so much outrage it nearly cost Obama the election when he did a complete flip flop and voted FOR what he had spoken out so eloquently against.

I don't know about you, but when a law is passed to save a crooked politician from prosecution, that is not a law, it is a blatant slap in the face to the Constitution and the American people. It makes a mockery of the rule of law, which is EXACTLY how it was viewed by Democrats across the board at the time.

Some of us don't flip flop on principles. I would never, ever use that phony, bought and paid for 'law' to defend the Bush surveillance policies that we were told would be 'changed' if only we would 'vote Democratic'.

In fact whenever I see any Democrat pointing to that POS 'law', I find it hard to believe I am actually witnessing people having the temerity to expect anyone to take them seriously.

It cast a shadow over the 2008 election. I was an Obama supporter from early on. I was certain he would vote against 'law' and was shocked when I found out he had. Then we had to listen for months, day after day, to all the excuses as to why he had done so. But at that point, we had no other choice so hoped his promises to 'fix' these policies would come to pass.

Please do Democrats who worked so hard to try to stop that 'save Bush from prosecution' amendment from passing, by not insulting them by using it now to protect the NSA from the consequences that Bush should have faced had it not been for Congress betraying their oaths of office and saving him.

So sick of all of this. The twisting and turning to try to defend the indefensible.

Bush SHOULD have prosecuted, along with his gang of War Criminals.

But the passage of that amendment to the FISA Bill was a foreboding of what was to come. Rather than apply the Rule of Law which was richly deserved, which have prevented these gross abuses that are now happening, I see people here actually USING one of the most blatant abuses of Congress' power, to defend what we all supposedly so opposed.

And finally, no, it is not because they legalized Bush's crimes. It is because there is Democrat in the WH. I have respect for honesty. I would rather hear someone say 'look, I hate this Amendment too, Bush should have been nailed back then, but now we have a Democrat in the WH and if we oppose these policies it will harm him'.

They will do this again. They got away with it once and now even have people USINGi it who should still be outraged over it. So the deterioration continues, speeded up now and with bi-partisan support. What a dream for the War Criminals. THEY certainly haven't changed their 'principles'. They are supporting the NSA loudly and publicly and it is painful to see them have the backing of Democrats. Cheney's gleeful support and praise for Obama, his implication that finally Democrats see the light. Unbelievable.

[Pholus]

45. ^^^^ Excellent summary of the core problem!

And I notice there was no comeback to it.

[Hydra]

49. It's not legal now either

Even John Robert's FISA court ruled it so.

Until they officially trashcan the Constitution, domestic spying is illegal.

[LondonReign2]

53. Maybe prosense can talk some sense into you

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't be changed to make that legal.

ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM
Original message
Edited on Wed Feb-15-06 08:53 AM by ProSense

Bush is spying on Americans: opponents and activist groups. The law can't
be changed to make that legal. The Republicans are trying to pull a fast one with this "law change" tactic by framing the illegal spying as warrantless spying on terrorists; therefore, the law is being changed to give Bush the authority to spy on terrorist. Spying on Americans was, is and will still be illegal. Bush committed crimeS by illegal spying on Americans and breaking existing FISA laws.

I'm sure all criminals would love to have a law passed that retroactively absolves them of their crimes.

[frylock]

65. if it was WRONG before 2008, then it's wrong now..

so congress took an illegal activity, slapped a bandage on it, and now it's all okey-dokey. this right here is why people are being called authoritarian.

[Egalitarian Thug]

79. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges,

to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France (François-Anatole Thibault)

[TheKentuckian]

95. Only in your mind. Some of us have values, morality, and principles

Illegal and legal are moving targets, right and wrong have more permanence.

Your response gives a pass to "we'll make it legal" and gives such actions a sloppy, wet kiss.

Disgusting. Moral compass on random.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. If my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle

sooo...thanks for that magical realism.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. For all we know she does and is, but that wasn't the question.

[DevonRex]

13. Everyone knew UKUSA spies on the entire globe. In Wikipedia:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

Global coverage
Each member of the UKUSA alliance is officially assigned lead responsibility for intelligence collection and analysis in different parts of the globe.

Australia
Australia hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia, and southern China.

Canada
Formerly the northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite, radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and non-aligned paramilitary groups in the region.

New Zealand

The Waihopai Valley Facility—base of the New Zealand branch of the ECHELON Program.
New Zealand is responsible for the western Pacific. Listening posts in the South Island at Waihopai Valley just south-west of Blenheim, and on the North Island at Tangimoana. The Anti-Bases Campaign holds regular protests in order to have the listening posts closed down.

United Kingdom
Europe, Africa, and European Russia.

United States
Monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic Russia, and northern China.

And an article on ZDnet from 2000:
http://www.zdnet.com/echelon-sigint-under-the-spotlight-3002079876/

[DevonRex]

14. And did you know that private individuals can purchase SIGINT setups?

Yes, they can. And private groups, shall we say. That's what makes this hysteria so fucking, well, hysterical.

ETA: I'm not talking about tracking IPs and installing cookies, either.

[KittyWampus]

16. Of course you don't define what you mean by spying & you neglect to mention that what bush did WAS

illegal.

[Fearless]

17. Conversely likewise.

[JoePhilly]

54. That's why the ambigious term "spying" is used in the first place.

It's an abstract term, used to obscure the actual details, and differences, and allows a false equivalence to be put forward.

Nothing new in that tactic. Happened here on DU almost daily now.

[L0oniX]

18. Bush 2 is the asshole who lied us into a war and enabled this fucking Stasi shit ...now this admin

has expanded it ...and IMO will continue to expand it. Oh don't be concerned about someone using repuke talking points ...we got an admin that is following in the Stasi foot steps of the worst POTUS this country has ever had.

[joshcryer]

19. I didn't like it when Obama voted for telecom spying immunity.

DU wanted to vote for him anyway. Lots of the same people, in fact, who are railing against Obama now.

[uponit7771]

21. yeah, should've voted for McKKKlan hunh?! wow....

[joshcryer]

37. Nope.

I voted for and canvased for Obama.

[burnodo]

67. the kind of simplistic response I've come to expect

[RetroLounge]

111. Yeah, because that EXACTLY what was said

RL

[truebrit71]

51. That was just one of MANY signs that he wasn't what he claimed to be...

..."Change" my arse...

[uponit7771]

20. FUCK YES!! Especially if the idiot gave the secret evidence to the fuckin Chinese media!!! You're...

....kidding with this question right?!

[otohara]

28. I Like Spy Movies

and pie.

Bush took us into a war the entire world protested - Snowden is lucky he did this now vs then
otherwise Cheney would have had him droned or sent to Gitmo.

[Skittles]

29. no, which makes them major hypocrites

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. Frankly I would welcome being spied on or even attacked by a drone - as long as it was Democratic

spy or drone - and would consider nothing less than an honor and privilege - by a dirty Republican spy or drone? - no way!

[uponit7771]

35. Yeah, you're right...dems advocated a war of agression and crashed the economy too...

...no need to give them any benefit of the doubt :rolleyes:

Dem = Rep = bullshit

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. I bet I was campaigning for Democrats long before you were a gleam

[Democracyinkind]

42. Safe bet.

[Thinkingabout]

43. Given the general feeling in 2001 this bunch

Running on and on and on about NSA surveillance would have been chewed up and spit out well before the break of dawn. It was after 9/11, laws like the patriot act was enacted.

[Norrin Radd]

44. kr

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. That's completely different, of course. :(

[Puzzledtraveller]

55. I already got an answer from one them here.

question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3489923

response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3489967

[truedelphi]

66. You fail to note the difference between Bush the Younger and Obama --

Both men are for transferring middle class wealth to Wall Street interests. Both support endless wars, totalitarian-style surveillance, and the diversion of a Peace Dividend over to the MIC-Surveillance satte interests. As well as keeping pot illegal, and for allowing the Prison Industry to keep booming along.

But Obama is well liked, as his style fits in with that of contemporary America. While Bush's "style" was so lacking that he was dissed continually.

[JoePhilly]

56. Please define "spying" using specific details and techniques.

Or is the point of using that rather abstract term intended to obscure the details and more importantly, obscure the differences, so as to push a false equivalency?

[Bobbie Jo]

93. They don't care.

The rage machine feeds on this shit.

This bunch puts Faux News to shame.

[blm]

58. Bush's CIA would NEVER have groomed a Snowden to use against Bush.

And Bush-loyal firms like Dell and Booz-Allen would NEVER have continued to groom a Snowden to use against Bush.

[ucrdem]

94. Nailed it.

[blm]

108. Yep. It really is that simple, but, some refuse to put it all in its proper context.

.

[City Lights]

59. Of course not.

They'd be doing the opposite of what they're doing now. There's a word for that...

[treestar]

60. If it were the same thing, I would not consider it something to get upset about

I think classified documents should be respected no matter who is President. There is a point where we need defense. Buscho may have overstated it or used it to get the Patriot Act passed, but it is still there.

In fact, why did Glenn wait? He could have exposed bigger sins by Bushco. But it would have been too dangerous then - he would have looked bad. When we were closer to 911, exposing classified documents would have been seen as a bad act by most of the populace. He wouldn't have hero status at all. So he bided his time until the nation had gotten at least somewhat past the fear of another 911.

[Fumesucker]

96. I read Glenn all the way back at Unclaimed Territory and then at Salon afterwards

I even crossed keyboards with him a few times, unlike many columnists he was not afraid to mix it up in the comments section.

Greenwald was pounding Dubya with everything he could find, the Republicans on the boards hated Glenn almost as much as you do.

[treestar]

106. So i have to "hate" him in order to disagree with his actions?

Do you have that emotion for everyone who does things you don't agree with?

Just because he pounded Bushco doesn't make him always right. He draws lines in a different place than I do.

And President would prosecute leakers. They are supposed to.

[Fumesucker]

107. I was responding to what you wrote, which was untrue

Perhaps you have a different motivation than hate for saying untrue things about someone, I know the Republicans certainly lied about Glenn too and I attributed that to hate as well.

In fact, why did Glenn wait? He could have exposed bigger sins by Bushco. But it would have been too dangerous then - he would have looked bad. When we were closer to 911, exposing classified documents would have been seen as a bad act by most of the populace. He wouldn't have hero status at all. So he bided his time until the nation had gotten at least somewhat past the fear of another 911.

[one_voice]

61. If it was stolen.

as it was now, I would have said the same thing, it was stolen.

If Snowden ended up in Russia as he is now, I would have said the same thing, leave him there.

I'm not calling for him to be hunted down and brought back. It's just not that important.

I didn't call him or Greenwald a traitor.

I did say what he did was steal, and stealing is a crime. He is a thief.

Doesn't matter when he stole it, 2001 or 2013.

I would have said the same thing then as now I don't like the spying and it should be stopped.

Oh wait, I did have a problem with all this shit when it was started under the Bush administration. Didn't you? Or did it just become a problem for you?

[pnwmom]

64. That's not what he did that was wrong.

He also passed on information about our spying on Russia and China, and his associate Greenwald has claimed there is much more that would be harmful to America in those documents.

[Mojorabbit]

71. Please document the information he has given Russia. Thank you. nt

[pnwmom]

82. Haven't you been reading the Guardian?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medvedev-g20-summit

G20 summit: NSA targeted Russian president Medvedev in London
Leaked documents reveal Russian president was spied on during visit, as questions are raised over use of US base in Britain

American spies based in the UK intercepted the top-secret communications of the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, during his visit to Britain for the G20 summit in London, leaked documents reveal.

The details of the intercept were set out in a briefing prepared by the National Security Agency (NSA), America's biggest surveillance and eavesdropping organisation, and shared with high-ranking officials from Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

The document, leaked by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian, shows the agency believed it might have discovered "a change in the way Russian leadership signals have been normally transmitted".

The disclosure underlines the importance of the US spy hub at RAF Menwith Hill in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, where hundreds of NSA analysts are based, working alongside liaison officers from GCHQ.

SNIP

[Mojorabbit]

83. You can't be serious.

We have always spied on them and them us. There is a whole genre of novels built on it. That is not giving away anything at all.

[AverageJoe90]

81. Exactly! What else do we need to say? n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

70. This thread is a sort of partial Who's Who?

[LearningCurve]

75. No

eom

[RetroLounge]

87. Nope, they are hypocrites

RL

[Coyotl]

88. It is not a hypothetical. It happened and it is in the archives.

Not 2001, not files, but Bush's illegal spying was exposed here on DU and elsewhere and you have everyone's responses in the archives.

[99Forever]

91. That would require principles and integrity.

Authoritarians and idol worshipers have neither.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

99. But the sixpack the sixpack.

And those beach photos. They can't help it if they have the vapors.

[Romulox]

100. Still think that those rightwingers let into the tent will be content to merely "piss out"?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

101. Apparently that is not their style, and we are paying dearly for it.

[Frosty1]

104. FBI agent Coleen Rowley, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds ?

Have we forgotten about them?
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/4/9/two_fbi_whistleblowers_accuse_bureau_of

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

105. Nope. Hardly. I was aiming more at an exact NSA reveal.

Nope. Hardly. I was aiming more at an exact NSA reveal as Snowden has done.

I admire that we have brave individuals, whistle blowers, that school Democracy in what is Democratic ever so often.

I am also not keen on anti-whistle blower laws or letters of secrecy where the government tells you that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to you.

[otohara]

112. Never Liked Greenwald in The Bush Years

is that okay with you?

Breaking News: I noticed there are surveillance cameras all over the place and they ain't all
owned by the scary government.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

114. Perhaps you need to re-read the OP.

You answer seems to be fumbling all over the place, and poorly formed.

[otohara]

115. Yeah Well, The Glut of Shoulda, Coulda, What If's

OP's on DU don't much interest me on anymore.

Bush didn't pay attention to the spy info they had on bin Laden and look how that turned out.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

116. Did you re-read the OP?

You seem to be going off in a farther tangent.

I didn't offer a Shoulda, Coulda, woulda.

It was a comparative post.

"Bush didn't pay attention to the spy info they had on bin Laden and look how that turned out."

You're right...he tabled that intel, but that is not the query that the OP was asking.