Everyone is under surveillance now, says whistleblower Edward Snowden

[Jesus Malverde]

The US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden has warned that entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance.

“It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing,” he said. “It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.”

Snowden made his comments in a short video that was played before a debate on the proposition that surveillance today is a euphemism for mass surveillance, in Toronto, Canada. The former US National Security Agency contractor is living in Russia, having been granted temporary asylum there in June 2013.

The video was shown as two of the debaters – the former US National Security Administration director, General Michael Hayden, and the well-known civil liberties lawyer and Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz – argued in favour of the debate statement: “Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/03/everyone-is-under-surveillance-now-says-whistleblower-edward-snowden

[whatchamacallit]

1. DU authoritarian multiple choice

This is

A) a lie
B) overstated
C) necessary for our security

[magical thyme]

2. D) delusional, paranoid

just finishing the multiple choice options

[Jesus Malverde]

3. I'm guessing the rationalization du jour will be a combination of A and B

Attacking the messenger while denying the problem exists.



Sounds like snowden was the best part of the "debate".

[sabrina 1]

8. 'Snowden is a putinite'?

'He fled to Russia'! Lol!

[Jesus Malverde]

16. Putinista....get your aspersions right!

[sabrina 1]

18. Oops, sorry about that! I'm bad with propaganda I admit. But I try!

[superpatriotman]

4. E) None of the above

The public is still in stage one of our grief, denial

[Jesus Malverde]

5. One day even the white knights with nothing to hide will come around to say no to the STAZI

[RKP5637]

126. Yep, perhaps they just don't understand the technology employed. It is dangerous to

what is left of a democracy.

[JoeyT]

21. A until it's proven to be happening,

B until the extent it's happening is proven, and C when the other two don't work.

This is a terrible thing and we would never do this! This is a terrible thing and we wouldn't do it any more than we had to! This is a wonderful thing and necessary to keeping us (And by us I mean me) safe!

[Bobbie Jo]

77. DU crackpot multiple choice

Best invective to fling at those who FAIL to trust Snowden implicitly:

A) authoritarian!11!
B) stasi apologist
C) police-state/NSA defender
D) turd-way bootlicker
E) all of the above

*extra points for the creative use of A - D in a single post.

[whatchamacallit]

79. In your case I think -> E)

[Bobbie Jo]

83. Not going for the extra points?

Kinda disappointed.

[cheapdate]

134. +1.

I'm just starting reading the thread and the (artificial) battle lines are drawn!

[kelliekat44]

136. I've been saying every one was under surveillance for the last 40 years. The methods are

are more sophisticated now. Snowden could have said this without giving secrets to world. I knew back in 1960 that every phone call to any credit card company was not only tapped but recorded. I found this out when AMEX travel agent made a mistake in booking reservations. I complained and when a day later they apologized saying after they checked their phone recordings their agent had indeed made an error. Damn...that was back in 1969.

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. Shhh ...

But it's the government!!!

[woo me with science]

6. State surveillance is freedom.

“Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms.”

War is Peace.
Freedom is Surveillance.
Ignorance is Strength.

[Jesus Malverde]

7. Fear is normal...nt

[sabrina 1]

10. And 'National Security' remains the lie to create the fear that creates support for throwing

away all of our rights.

[global1]

11. You Forgot "Money Is Speech"......nt

[Jesus Malverde]

17. And corporations are people.

Good catch.

[woo me with science]

37. +10000

[MADem]

9. Snowden is under surveillance....

When he goes to his computer, when he goes to his refrigerator, and when he goes to the toilet, Putin is watching him! He went from Amateur Hour to the Land of Professional Surveillance! Now he'll learn how it's REALLY done, when it's done REALLY well!

What fun for Ed! He now learns at the feet of the master!

[sabrina 1]

12. Lol! So it's okay for the US to do what Russia does now? I'm confused, I thought we didn't act

like the Soviet Union, I mean Russia, the Soviet Union is history.

Why did the US force Snowden to remain in Russia?

[MADem]

14. Where did I say that?

Fact is, I didn't. And Eddie can come home any time he'd like.

[sabrina 1]

19. Whistle Blower Edward Snowden faces the same persecution all Whistle Blowers are subjected

to now in the US. See Manning, torture, humiliation, totally silenced for years while the perps are out their making hundreds of thousands of dollars to give lectures on National Security, see Condy eg.

Are you calling the US a prison? 'Home' for Whistle Blowers = Prison, 35 years at least. I guess you have a point, the do have the largest prison population in the history of the world, but Profits are everything, Privatization of everything, including the military.

Interesting word 'home'.

I'm sure Snowden in only the first of all future Whistle Blowers who will seek political asylum elsewhere now. All those before him support his choice not believe that we have 'protections' for Whistle Blowers, as Drake did and Binney eg. They paid a heavy price for believing that.

[MADem]

20. Face the music and dance.

Now you're saying he shouldn't come 'home?'

Make up your mind.

I think he's like VISA--he's everywhere he wanted to be. He'll never have to work another day in his life, so long as he keeps dancing for Vladimir.

I'll bet he's loving the round-the-clock surveillance he's under now!

[sabrina 1]

27. I'm asking you if you are calling Prison and Torture 'home' in America.

You invited a Whistle Blower to 'come home'. Knowing that Prison and possible torture and isolation is what any US Whistle Blower can expect. So is that your image of America? Or are you suggesting he would be returning to a Democracy where he would face charges leading to a fair trial, during which time he would be out on bail, free to speak to the media etc?? Lol, now that IS funny if that is what you are trying to claim.

Sad isn't it, that 'home' to US Whistle Blowers IS now known as 'Prison and Torture'. That is our reputation. Maybe some day we will restore the rule of law for war and wall st criminals and stop violating laws to protect the 1%. But you are correct in the image you just created, the US is represented in many parts of the world now with prison bars and images of tortured human beings.

[MADem]

28. How nice that you've appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner! nt

[sabrina 1]

33. Got anything to refute anything I said? Personal attacks have zero effect on me, I got used to them

during the Bush years while engaging the Far Right defenders of our foreign policies. I'm interested only in facts. So far, you've engaged only in nebulous comments about 'coming home'. I asked for a definition of what 'home' means to an American Whistle Blower. I think everyone knows what that means, but you appear to be reluctant to expand on your invitation. That's fine. Prison and torture, see Chelsea Manning. That is what 'home' means for US Whistle Blowers.

War criminals otoh, are paid huge amounts of money to 'lecture' on FP. Amazing isn't it?

[MADem]

42. Speaking of "personal attacks" all you seem to be doing is telling me what you think I think and

believe...we might as well just let you just tell everyone what their views are, since you've already made up your mind!

You're not interested in facts--you are interested in making accusations. Sorry, I don't regard you as The Way or The Light. And why are you talking about Manning when the thread is about Snowden? You do that alot. But, since you insist on rehashing that drama:

==Chelsea Manning stole documents wholesale as a military enlisted member and gave them to Julian Assange, and got an appropriate punishment. Too bad if that troubles you--even Manning admitted culpability.

==Manning is being held in very comfortable digs; no torture, no abuse, because it's Leavenworth and they're quite specific as to how they run things there--it's a calm environment with no drama, the inmates are military so they understand unit discipline, visitors can come every day (unlike civilian prisons), there's tv, cards, exercise, and school. The color scheme may be dreary, but the environment is VERY safe. It's like bootcamp with WAY more perks and less exercise, only it lasts much, much longer and everyone has their own room.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Manning knew that stealing those documents and giving them to Assange was wrong, and said as much.

Why can Manning understand that, and you cannot?

A photo of a typical cell in the Leavenworth barracks shows a well-lit but austere space, with a bunk and a desk and a metal toilet-and-sink unit. On her blog, Finch's co-author described beginning his incarceration in a 6-by-9-foot cell with cinderblock walls and a green steel door.

"It is dreary," Gorecki-Robbins said.

Inmates have access to playing cards, board games and television. The prison has craft and music rooms, and recreational activities, including weightlifting and playing basketball, flag football and ping pong. Both Finch and Gorecki-Robbins said seating for television or movies shown by the prison is determined by an inmate's social status, with the inmate with the highest ranking sitting front and center and newcomers taking seats in the back.

Uniforms are brown, usually worn and "heavily starched," Finch said. Inmates can buy their own shoes, she said, and that's where their fashion individuality shows.

Inmates are paid just pennies an hour for their work, Finch said. People outside the prison can send them money orders, though they're limited to spending $80 a month, she said.

Visitors can come any day of the week, according to post officials, though hours on weekdays are limited to the evenings. There are no conjugal visits.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/fort-leavenworth-prison_n_3790965.html

This thread isn't about Manning, though---but you sure like to change the subject!

[sabrina 1]

45. This thread is about a Whistle Blower. Manning too was a Whistle Blower. YOU implied falsely that US

Whistle Blowers are 'welcome to come home'. I reminded you of some facts regarding what 'home' actually means to US Whistle Blowers these days.

I used Manning, who was TORTURED, as an example of why your flippant invitation to Snowden was ridiculous to put it mildly.

I'm sorry if the facts bother you. Don't take it out on me, I did not make the policies that put YOU in the position of trying to defend indefensible policies.

Go yell at those who keep on putting you in that position, OR do as most of us who always opposed these policies under Bush have done, stick to those principles and direct your anger at those who are constantly letting you down, causing you to find yourself in the position of trying to defend the indefensible.

Personal attacks only show enormous frustration at finding oneself unable to defend their decisions to try to make sense out of the decisions made by those they supported who were making promises they have not kept.

[MADem]

46. Manning was not a whistle blower, those stolen documents were not read or vetted but given wholesale

to Assange. Manning has admitted that, apologized, and acknowledged that the theft of those documents harmed the US.

Apparently you're the last one to get that word?

And I "implied" nothing.

Manning was a document thief who violated an oath taken multiple times, as well as a transgressor of a shitload of military regulations and UCMJ articles, who got a sentence entirely suited to the crime committed--and that's not even adding in hitting a supervisor in her face.

Good grief, you're being didactic and you don't even have the basics down. When it comes to "facts," you are coming up short on them. Why don't you start with getting a basic understanding of how Manning feels (since you're so focused on "feelings&quot about the theft of those documents and the other misconduct that led to 35 years in jail (with three years plus off for time served, and a ten percent sentence reduction for good behavior)?

And you really do need to stop making this about what "you" think "bothers" me. You're right about getting personal--you've been doing precisely this throughout the thread, and it's an immature way to try and make a point. Clearly, you must be very "frustrated" indeed (per your interpretation) because you just can't stop telling me how I feel (according to your POV) and you're not getting even essential "facts" right.

So while you mumble on about 'defending/making sense of decisions,' you might instead want to gather a basic understanding of what actually happened instead of inventing "facts" to suit a narrative of your own "personal" creation.

Or not--that's probably too much to ask.

[JDPriestly]

52. For the sake of argument, let's say that Manning is a thief.

What do you think of the soldiers who attacked and approved the attack on an unarmed journalist and then left a child to die?

Is that also a war crime?

if so, what punishment does that crime deserve?

Or is the attack on the unarmed, obviously unarmed journalist and leaving a child to die just par for the course in war in your view?

[MADem]

58. What do you mean, "for the sake of argument." Manning IS an admitted thief who

admitted guilt, took responsibility, and apologized for thieving and harming the US.

I'm not even going to play a "What about this crime, what about that crime" game. One of these things is NOT like the other, as most people learn watching Sesame Street. I'm just not going to indulge you in a "Waaah, this person got a 'worse' sentence than that person!" exercise.

Pro tip: Life isn't fair.

I wasn't part of any defense or prosecution teams for your kid killers OR Manning, and Manning didn't have a shortage of legal help--in fact, those lawyers did a very good job; their client will be out in less than thirty when the maximum sentence could have been a HUNDRED and thirty.

But hey, smooth move, dragging a dead child into the discussion from way, way out in left field like that....that's probably the most astounding sub-thread derail/deviation I've seen in a long, long time.

[BlindTiresias]

59. Life isn't fair

So what happened to those dead folks doesn't matter. Essentially what you are saying.

[MADem]

61. Don't try to "guess" what you think people mean--you don't do a very good or accurate job at it.

I'm not comparing an apple to an orange, and you shouldn't either. A shoe is not like an octopus and that has nothing to do with this thread either.

Also, the baiting tone is noted. You might want to work on that too, lest someone regard you as "uncivil."

[BlindTiresias]

62. So say what you mean then

You completely sidestepped the issue of whether or not what transpired was just. It is not my fault if your defense of silencing the messenger is interpreted as an endorsement of what happened.

[MADem]

63. I've been very clear. I'm not going to play a hypothetical game with dead children,

apples, or oranges.

Don't do the crime--that the accused admitted to, apologized for, and expressed remorse about--if you can't do the time.

[BlindTiresias]

64. Ok

So if someone exposes an injustice they should be punished. Got it.

[MADem]

65. No, you clearly don't get it.

I guess no one ever taught you that two wrongs don't make a right.

How nice that you can be morally fluid when it suits you. Manning acknowledged those actions hurt the US and were wrong, ill-advised, and didn't have the intended effect--i guess I'll just have to wonder why can't you have as much insight as Manning?

[BlindTiresias]

66. No I understand

You think it is better for an injustice to go unknown and unaddressed rather than the law be broken. You are not alone here, this opinion being the domain of legalists for millennia. Unfortunately these same legalists are also responsible for the worst crimes in human history, often heaping injustice upon injustice to defend their initial transgression.

I do not care about Manning's words but his actions. You will know them by their deeds.

[MADem]

78. There you go, telling me what you think I think....!

You might want to stop doing that. You're just not correct.

Manning's actions are as follows: SHE took responsibility for her crimes. She understands that what she did was not helpful and put lives of Americans at risk. She realizes, far too late, that she was miserable and unhappy for reasons that had nothing to do with national security, and that her conduct was intemperate and wrong. She has accepted her sentence and she's going to make the most of her time incarcerated. In sum, she's grown up. So yeah, you will know them by their deeds.

[BlindTiresias]

84. Not what you think

Just the logical end of your argumentation.

You seem to be thinking that the law, however it is constructed, is superior to service of larger goals such as exposing injustice or an imminent danger to the republic.

I would have to ask you this: Would there ever be a point where you felt the that the law itself has become unjust and served to protect the unjust rather than contribute to the general welfare? Is the law itself all that matters no matter how it is constructed?

[MADem]

87. Good grief, you're doing it AGAIN!!!!

You seem to be thinking ....


Just ... STOP. You want me to be your personal boogie man, and I simply refuse to oblige you. You might, in future, spend less time telling people what they think, and more time crafting arguments that aren't such blatant strawmen or false analogies that they can be so easily disregarded.

[BlindTiresias]

88. ?

Drawing out the logical consequences of an argument is not the same as telling them what they think. If the logical consequences as I am reading them are so different from your actual beliefs then maybe you would be well served by explaining exactly what you think in terms of the law versus morality? I already asked you to provide greater clarification here:

I would have to ask you this: Would there ever be a point where you felt the that the law itself has become unjust and served to protect the unjust rather than contribute to the general welfare? Is the law itself all that matters no matter how it is constructed?

[MADem]

91. Yet you keep telling me what you bet I think.

Some laws are unjust--slavery is a very good example. Laws against wholesale theft of items that one is entrusted to keep safe and one hasn't even read, citing a dubious claim of "national interest" isn't one of those "unjust" laws.

Ask yourself the question "Cui bono?" Near as I can tell, from the Snowden imbroglio, the only one getting any "bono" is Vladimir.

When I hear hoofbeats, I think horses--Vladimir, shirtless, on a horse in this instance.

[BlindTiresias]

92. Ok

So if the law disallows the exposing of unjust actions or such exposition must necessarily occur alongside punishment of the whistleblower would you find this a just or unjust law? What if the government specifically utilized non-protected contractors who the already curtailed whistleblower protections do not apply? As an extension of this, do you find the price of disclosure being the deprivation of freedom particularly just?

[MADem]

94. You ate the "Big Lie" with your first sentence.

The law does NOT disallow the exposing of unjust actions--that's a canard.

Had Snowden gone to the Senate he could have been afforded protections IF--and that's only IF--he had a case.

Ellsberg didn't get deprived of his freedom. Hell, Scooter Libby didn't get deprived of his freedom either--and he was guilty as hell. If Snowden could have proved to Dianne Feinstein that the NSA was listening in on HER personal conversations she would have made damn sure nothing happened to him. Look at what committee she chairs. He'd be safe as houses with her. He could have gone to his idol Rand Paul and gotten similar help while Rand of the Squirrel Toupee took his poutrage all the way to the GOP presidential nomination.

He didn't do any of that, though--he lied to his bosses, lied to his fiancee, lied to his family, grabbed a bunch of stuff and ran to the RUSSIAN CONSULATE in HONG KONG, while babbling that he really wanted to go to Iceland.

Yeah.....that's entirely logical.

Not.

He knew they were on to him. That's why he bolted.

[BlindTiresias]

95. Not really that clear cut

It is questionable if federal whistleblower protections apply to contractors: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/07/glenn-greenwald/greenwald-nsa-leaker-snowden-has-no-whistleblower-/

I tend to agree with this analysis, as it is highly questionable whether or not he would be protected. I would certainly not stake my freedom on that level of uncertainty.

[MADem]

97. ENTIRELY clear cut. Ask John Dean. Ask Oliver North.

Three little words: Immunity from prosecution.

He never even TRIED.

[BlindTiresias]

98. Did you even read the link?

The ambiguity comes from his status as a contractor.

[MADem]

107. DUH. You think a contractor can't be granted immunity from prosecution?

ANYONE can. There is no "ambiguity." Again, you ate the Big Lie.

It has nothing to do with "whistleblower protections." Anyone looking for that immunity had better have the damn goods, but it could be gotten.

Committees have broad power to grant immunity to enable witnesses to testify without fear of prosecution. This doesn't matter if the witness is a contractor, a government employee, or that bum down the street on the corner with the squeegee and the pail of dirty water. They can also hold a recalcitrant witness in contempt and subject them to criminal prosecution. You don't fuck with these people--they do have the power. All Snowden needed to do was sell them on the notion that there was Trouble, right there in NSA city and he would have been sheltered because that Intel Committee would have wanted to know just how much "dirt" the NSA ostensibly had on them. Their interests would most certainly have been piqued.

I suspect he didn't have the goods. THAT's why he's trying to muddy the waters with bullshit about whistleblowing.

Congress possesses broad and encompassing powers to engage in oversight and conduct investigations reaching all sources of information necessary to carry out its legislative functions. In the absence of a countervailing constitutional privilege or a self-imposed statutory restriction upon its authority, Congress and its committees have virtually plenary power to compel production of information needed to discharge their legislative functions. This applies whether the information is sought from executive agencies, private persons, or organizations. Within certain constraints, the information so obtained may be made public.

These powers have been recognized in numerous Supreme Court cases, and the broad legislative authority to seek information and enforce demands was unequivocally established in two Supreme Court rulings arisingout of the 1920s Teapot Dome scandal. In McGrain v. Daugherty,10 which considered a Senate investigation ofthe Department of Justice, the Supreme Court described the power of inquiry, with the accompanying processto enforce it, as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.”

http://www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/175.pdf

[BlindTiresias]

109. Care to address the arguments in the link then?

You should be able to easily refute the claim beyond the broad appeal you are making if it is so crystal clear. I'll be waiting.

[MADem]

114. Your "wait" is over. You won't be happy, though.

If a Congressional committee--say, the intel committee, grants him immunity, which they CAN DO at the drop of a hat, without worrying if he is a contractor, a government employee, a poet, a pirate, a con or a king, then when he gets to COURT -- the dramatic Greenwald scenario in your link-- he still HAS that immunity.

It travels with him, like an Adventure Cloak. It's not just "immunity from Congress being mean to him." It's "immunity from prosecution."

Further, the link you're giving me as "arguments" backs up what I'm saying:

"Had Mr. Snowden taken his information to the House or Senate intelligence committees, that would clearly not have violated the Espionage Act," Turner said. "And if it did, his conduct would have been protected by the more recent 1998 whistleblower statute."

NOT have violated the Espionage Act.

PROTECTED by the 1998 whistleblower statute.

YOUR link!!!!!!!!


Good grief--Snowden builds a complex web of whines and excuses, and Greenwald backs it up with a "Waaah, when he gets to COURT..." bit of drama. Congressional immunity trumps it all.

[BlindTiresias]

116. And yet there is stll ambiguity

"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, for instance, does not prohibit agencies from retaliating against employees, said Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program at New York University School of Law.

Goitein said President Barack Obama helped matters slightly when he issued a presidential order preventing retaliation against federal employees. But that order did not explicitly address the rights of contractors such as Snowden. And Goitein added, neither that directive nor the whistleblower law "bars the government from criminally prosecuting whistleblowers."

In 2010, NSA staffer Thomas Drake tried to use proper channels to report allegations of improper contracting but wound up the target of an investigation, said Kathleen McClellan, the national security and human rights counsel for the Government Accountability Project, a whistleblower advocacy group.

"Drake followed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower law to a ‘T’," McClellan said. "He went to the Department of Defense inspector general and both congressional intelligence committees and it did not protect him from retaliation. In fact, it made him the target of an investigation."

Federal agents wrongly went after Drake in pursuit of a separate matter and charged him with multiple felonies, according to a report from the Committee to Protect Journalists. When it became clear that whatever Drake had shared with the press was either not classified or already in the public domain, the government’s felony case collapsed. A federal judge said it was "unconscionable" that Drake and his family had endured "four years of hell.""

"In 2012, a federal judge ruled that former CIA worker John Kiriakou could not present evidence about his reasons for going public with accounts of U.S. waterboarding during interrogations. Kiriakou was charged with disclosing classified information under the Espionage Act.

"Any claim that he acted with a salutary motive, or that he acted without a subversive motive, when he allegedly communicated NDI (national defense information) to journalists is not relevant to this case," the judge wrote."


I am sorry but so far all you have is an appeal to the benevolence of a congressional committee, of which the recent record has been not supportive of your claims. You are going to need to substantiate your argument more than just stating that they do possess such powers.

[MADem]

119. Oh, fachrissake. What part of Immunity From Prosecution are you having difficulty

understanding?

If Congress immunized him, he's home free. No court. No prosecution. No going directly to jail and he could have made a nice payday on the speaker's circuit from anyone who wanted to hear him preach.

What, you think he should keep his job, too--after it was proven that he lied about his educational credentials, and his new clearance got kicked back to Booz, which was part of the reason that he RAN in the first place?

Too late for any of that now, though--he went and sold his soul to Putin.

[BlindTiresias]

120. You misunderstand

I am not saying they do not possess these powers, they do. The question is if they would be utilized and if the information necessary to invoke such protections would be allowed to be presented, which is the legal technicality that helped trap Kiriakou. His status and the current record of whistleblowers in fact -not- being protected by legal channels is where the ambiguity comes in.

It simply not the case that all one has to do is ask, there are very specific conditions required and that is where the ambiguity resides. That you are saying that it is possible to gain immunity has no interaction with the facts of the matter and their resulting ambiguity. In other words, you need to demonstrate that the conditions are in fact present for the immunity to be invoked beyond stating that immunity is possible.

[MADem]

138. He managed to get Dianne Feinstein "ired" with his claims that he could

read her email, hack her computer and phone, and see into her soul; all he'd have to do is prove that and he'd be home free. Problem though, is I doubt he could prove it.

That article you keep trying to insist provides "ambiguity" does not even talk about the immunity granted for congressional testimony, it talks about "whistleblower protection" in the Inspector General model. All government agencies have an oversight bureaucracy, and the whole whistleblowing/IG mechanisms go along with that. But I am not talking about that, as I have said several times already (perhaps it will eventually sink in?).

Congress's powers are far reaching and swift; IG investigations, by contrast have all the speed of a snail or a glacier. An IG is not Congress. And with Congress, there is NO ambiguity. NONE whatsoever. If you have compelling testimony and they want to hear it, and the only way you'll talk is with immunity, they're giving you that immunity. It doesn't matter if you're a sports figure or a White House staffer, a film actor or a street sweeper--OR a government contractor--the grant of immunity is a cloak of protection from prosecution. It's quite straightforward.

Of course, he wouldn't be "protected" from the "retaliation" (sob, boohoo) of losing his job. But he was gonna lose that job anyway even if he hadn't stolen all that material--his clearance had come up "problematic." He lied about his educational qualifications. Not just a little--a LOT. It was only a matter of time before the house of cards came tumbling down.

He HAD to know all this, too.

For such a supposedly smart guy, he looks awfully stupid to my eyes.

Stupid....or compromised, with no way out.

[Vattel]

176. Since Obama mistakenly suggested that his directive covered contractors,

the new talking point is that Snowden could have gone to congress and got immunity. Of course that route would have guaranteed that what he made public would not have become public and he almost certainly would not have been granted immunity.

[MADem]

179. Look, he could have gotten immunity without leaving, BEFORE Obama said anything.

It's not a "new" talking point, it's one that was ALWAYS available to him, indeed, it predates his decision--HIS decision, mind you--to pack his bags, grab his laptops, and run like hell.

For such a smart guy, he wasn't so smart.

Or maybe he had other reasons for running.

Like, maybe, he was called home.

[JDPriestly]

69. It's what is called a "hypothetical."

It is an exercise used to determine whether a legal conclusion or judgment will apply universally to all similar situations or all situations that have a similar factor or element. That is called the rule of law.

If Manning's admitted exposure of facts deemed by the military to be "secret" is criminal, are any of the actions that Manning exposed also criminal. If the actions Manning exposed are also criminal and if Manning is justly punished for exposing them, does the principle of the rule of law require that the actions Manning exposed which were the originally criminal actions in that they happened before the actions Manning exposed need to be punished?

A hypothetical is a tool that we can use to determine whether we are being fair.

I know life is not always fair, but our legal system is supposed to be based on the rule of law and fairness to the extent possible. For that reason, it is important that we test our opinions and conclusions for fairness and for consistency in applying the rule of law.

When a person breaks an institutional or bureaucratic law in the belief that he is serving a higher purpose, and when that higher purpose is generally accepted by our society as serving the values of the society, then the person seeking to serve the higher societal purpose is likely to be viewed as a hero.

When Ellsberg blew the whistle and brought out the Pentagon Papers to be published, the government and many Americans viewed him as a traitor. He is now viewed as a hero by millions and millions of Americans. Most Americans probably don't know who he is. Some conservatives probably still think he is a traitor.

Ellsberg revealed war waste, lies and corruption.

So has Snowden. So did Manning (in addition to possible war crimes).

So we are faced with making a moral judgment. Would it have been morally better for Snowden and Manning to let sleeping dogs lie and not reveal the truth to the American people? Or are they heros because they followed their moral compasses and spoke up?

Time will tell.

You and I disagree on this. I can understand that you find my approach to be tedious and annoying. But I am seeking to judge these men not based solely on the bureaucratic, legal rights and wrongs but also on morality and on American political and social values.

In my view, Snowden and Manning served the higher purpose of promoting democracy and insuring an informed voting public with their revelations. That is why I trust them in general and think they did the right thing.

Just explaining. You don't have to agree. And what is more, you don't have to admit that you agree with me here on DU.

I do not hold grudges or harbor hard feelings. I am simply trying my best to understand right and wrong, legal right and wrong and then moral right and wrong.

[MADem]

82. Manning was tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

That was MY legal system for many decades, but it's not the legal system of most Americans, and it's not the same.

The example you are providing is closer to a straw man than a hypothetical. It suggests that if a criminal does a good thing while engaged in a crime, then they should be forgiven for the crime. It just doesn't work that way. If you kidnap the baby just before the bus hits the stroller, you've still kidnapped the baby. There is no "higher purpose" to kidnapping the baby, you see, and to try to retroactively claim that because your kidnapping the baby "saved" it from being hit by the bus rings false. You still kidnapped the kid, and you didn't do it to "save" it, either.

Ellsberg and Manning have slightly more in common than Snowden and Ellsberg. Ellsberg and Manning faced the music. Ellsberg, unlike Manning, actually worked on the material he leaked and he leaked the information only after careful reflection. Manning did not even read the stuff she handed over, and her precarious mental health caused her to go down that delusional and self-destructive road in the first place.

I used to think that Snowden was a misguided young man, now I am starting to think he's a turned operative, now in the employ of KGB Vlad, and he was turned as far back as Japan, or even Switzerland. Why do I think this? Because the Russians don't routinely offer housing in the Hong Kong consulate to just anyone that they haven't met with or known previously. Because Snowden's televised dog-and-pony show with Putin was propaganda in its most elementary and craven form. Because Snowden's "treasure trove of tidbits" doesn't have a single 'tidbit' that has to do with Vladimir the Great's Russian empire. When I hear hoofbeats, I think horses--and here comes Pootie and Ed, riding in on a horse...

Apparently, too, you're under the misapprehension that orders are invitations, and oaths are simply pinky pledges or suggestions. Manning had orders that she violated, and she took oaths that she violated as well. Those behaviors were CRIMINAL. Every service member knows that orders and oaths are serious business, that they're accountable for their actions and responsible for the outcomes of their behavior; it's drummed into them--it's not some big secret. Actions have consequences.

Manning had no intention to reveal anything in particular. She had a massive fit of pique. She stole a bunch of shit and dumped it wholesale on Assange. She eagerly conspired with an idiot who turned out to be a turned government informant because she wanted to "belong." That wasn't about "revealing any truth" -- that was about wide-ranging dissatisfaction regarding a military assignment, a sense of isolation and loneliness combined with paranoia, and unhappiness with peers and her life and medical situation. Do you seriously think that Manning would have revealed ANYTHING if she didn't suffer the mental health challenges she was dealing with, was happy in her duty assignment and had a rewarding social life? Manning's actions had everything to do with her personal, abject misery, which affected her judgment and led to her intemperate and criminal conduct.

If she had it to do over again, she would have been truthful about her medical issues to her chain of command and not served any "higher purpose" to suit you or anyone else. She made a mistake, and it was a BIGGIE, and it has pretty much screwed her out of her freedom for the next three decades. You should review her apology to the court. She sums it up quite succinctly.

As prisons go, she's in a good one in terms of the environment. It's a low drama, low violence, decent food, visitors can come seven days a week, lots of activities-education-work opportunities-vocational training type place. Since the inmates are military, they understand the whole mindset, and there's a leadership paradigm operative at the facility. It's not a place of fear, and that's probably the best aspect of the place, aside from the fact that it is new construction (no bars, more windows and light). If she does have surgery though, she will have to leave that location and go to a federal prison, which might not be quite so mellow.

[JDPriestly]

96. My post had two points.

The first is to point out that, as in the Eichmann and Nuremburg and other subsequent war crimes trials, the excuse that a war criminal was following orders, obeying the law is to no avail if the defendant has committed a war crime. That means that there is a higher moral law than our military or criminal laws. Of course, whether a criminal is punished or even prosecuted depends on the power structure. If the military or power that is prevailing at the moment orders a person to do something wrong such as deprive, in a democracy, the public of information that the public needs in order to wisely fulfill their civil duty to vote, then there is a higher moral and social law that tells the person to follow the higher moral and social law and not the order of the power of the moment.

In our law, we believe in punishing crimes that are committed. But as you know, the prosecutor has the discretion not to prosecute actions that could be found to be criminal by a jury.

I am asking which crime would you prosecute first, the crime of killing an obviously unarmed man on the battlefield, or maybe leaving an innocent child to die in the front seat of a van that your troops attacked or Snowden's letting people know they are under constant surveillance and have no privacy.

I believe that sometimes people choose to follow what they believe to be a higher moral imperative than the institutional law. I also believe that when they do that, as in Manning's case, they usually resign themselves to answering to the wrath of the institutional law that they have knowingly broken. The civil rights protestors were marched off to jail. We often forget Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham Jail. We forget the many Viet Nam war protestors who spent time in prison for refusing to serve when drafted. The does not make what they did morally wrong. It makes it wrong in terms of civil or military justice.

Whether Snowden will come back to the US and "face the music" is not yet known. Not all the documents he brought with him have been released. They may not yet have all been vetted.

You speculate that he may have become a Russian operative. I strongly disagree. But neither of us knows for sure. In any event, the longer the US makes it difficult for Snowden to come back to the US, the more Putin can use Snowden's very presence in Russia as a propaganda tool. We both know, and Snowden knows, and Putin knows that Putin's denial that Russia has its population under surveillance is only limited by Russia's infrastructure (probably doesn't have as many cameras located on its streets, not as many as in London or Los Angeles), technological and production capacities.

But what happens to Snowden has to be seen in terms of that higher moral law. Let's say he makes a deal that allows him to come back to the US after all his documents have been published provided he agrees to a reduced prison sentence. Maybe that will happen. Maybe not.

Two facts till remain.

First, the prosecutor's discretion with regard to bringing charges for specific crimes is being used in our country to protect people in high places. Whether it is the members of the Bush administration who authorized cruel torture or the people who commit war crimes even if they violate military law (such as friendly fire or covering up war crimes) or civil law (forging signatures or fraudulently signing on foreclosure documents), increasingly in the US, justice is aimed to punish those who reveal the corruption of the rich and powerful. Our justice is frightfully focused on punishing the poor, the weak, the middle class. The eyes of justice are supposed to be blindfolded, but it appears that our justice system is peaking out from the bottom of the blindfold to punish the weakest. Our prisons are full of them.

So I am exploring several issues. How a person should be treated when they follow a sense of a higher justice and obey a law that may not be the law of the institutions of their country? (Think in terms of the Nuremburg trials and the Eichmann trial. Do we honor the military law, for example, that requires a soldier to decline to follow an illegal order?) What laws should be enforced? In which cases should laws be enforced? And why does it appear to me that not only are the rich and powerful writing or buying the writing of laws that favor them but that when it comes to enforcing the law, prosecutors prefer to bring to trial cases against the powerless and poor, not against the powerful and rich?

What do you think about these issues.

As for Snowden, I am grateful for the fact that he let me know just how extreme the surveillance is in the US. I do not believe that surveillance is really aimed at terrorists or extremist movements. Were that true then surely the NSA would have picked up on the organization of Occupy and this Bundy bunch. The US would not have sent a group of BLM officers to enforce the court orders against Bundy had they known that he was organizing a small insurrection. So their massive collection of data was a big failure in that case. Had they been observing the organization of Occupy, they would have known it was not an insurrection and not violent but rather merely the exercise of free speech and perhaps a rather messy use of public space (although Occupiers tried to be orderly, their numbers created a mess). So what in the world are they collecting all that information for. Politics? That's my guess although who knows?

I am active in political discussion in part in the hope that our civil law will become as closely aligned with moral law as possible. People like Manning and Ellsberg and Snowden should not have to make the choices they had to make.

A lot of people think that Snowden should have used some sort of mythical whistleblower protection mechanism. Had he done that, the public would never have learned the extent to which everything we do via electronic media is under surveillance. I am very grateful, not so much because of anything I do or say in my communications, but for my children and grandchildren, that we all know that now.

[BlindTiresias]

102. Agreed

I am beginning to suspect that the individuals invoking "whistleblower protections" have a poor grasp of law in this matter and specifically what kinds of government workers the existing protections apply to and what kind of information can and cannot be revealed. In my opinions they are conjuring up an ideal set of legal protections as the standard without even the slightest effort to investigate how these protections have changed and what exactly they entail.

[JDPriestly]

108. Yes. I vaguely recall that when the Patriot Act was being drafted, there was quite a discussion

about the status of whistleblowers and that they were not to receive much protection if any at all. Anyway going to a congressional committee did not work for Kiriakou. Isn't he still sitting in jail. The actual torturers are free and the person who destroyed the evidence of some of the torture is also free. Kiriakou who blew the whistle on the torture is in jail. So much for Snowden going to speak to someone in Congress. That does not work.

A lot of people have the old mentality of the cold war (including me to some extent). We think that spies are turned. I do not think that Snowden was a spy. I have no idea what he is doing in the Russia right now. I also have no idea how long Putin will let him stay.

Change is the one constant.

[MADem]

103. Manning had no "higher moral purpose."

She admitted she didn't even read the shit she gave Assange. Her actions were driven by her personal misery, and she acknowledged that she was misguided in the extreme.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not going to play a game of "Which is worst" with you. Snowden had options--he could have gone to anyone on the Senate Intel Committee, or any of the associated subcommittees, with a really good lawyer and obtained immunity for testimony. If he could have, as he's claiming now, demonstrated that he could watch Dianne Feinstein order spanx and a long line brassiere from Amazon, you can be sure that she'd make sure he got that immunity faster than you can say JOHN DEAN. Why didn't he do this? Because he couldn't prove what he's saying, is my guess.

This whole "I had no other choice, waaaah, waaah" line of bullshit is just not supported. Immunity is OFTEN granted for testimony that's salient. This game of "I can't tell or I'll be breaking the law, waaah!" is not on. You get your lawyer to play a "Just supposing" game -- "Just supposing my client could tell you that NSA is doing this, that and the other..." and you take it from there.

Like I said, I initially thought Snowden was a wide-eyed stupinagle who was clueless about his options. The more I listen to his bullshit, which gets piled higher and deeper everytime he opens his mouth, the more I think he is a turned operative, and he's been turned since the first time he went on vacation to Hong Kong, at least--and perhaps even much, much earlier.

For all we know, perhaps after his initial Ars Technica whinging and griping about the high cost of living in Europe, the reason that he started to enjoy "horribly expensive" Switzerland wasn't because he "settled in," but instead he started enjoying a nicer lifestyle thanks to the expense account of a friendly Russian agent who persuaded him to grant him small accommodations for easy paydays...and you know how those guys are, once they've got ya, they keep ya. Integrity, like virginity, is lost but ONCE.

I was born at night, but not last night. I just can't buy this guy's bullshit anymore, particularly when NONE of it--not one little bit-- involves Saint Vladimir of Putin. It's just not credible that none of the goodies he got his paws on have anything to do with Russia, Putin, or any of their senior leaders, when he can cough up the most OBSCURE document about third tier nations and their interactions with USA. Too clever by half, Eddie is.

Thing is, he can be too clever in Moscow because he's definitely chosen sides--that last Putin Praising Lalapalooza was just a bridge too far; I hope he's giving the Rosetta Stone a good workout; that's a tough language to speak conversationally, never mind master. Bright spot--he's got all the time in the world, because he ain't going anywhere. I doubt anyone in the intelligence community believes him, and I'll bet the only reason they don't come right out an call him an operative is because he's not the only one. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the US intelligence community has a problem on their hands that makes the Walker ring look like a walk in the park.

[JDPriestly]

105. "that last Putin Praising Lalapalooza was just a bridge too far"

I think you heard what you wanted to hear in Snowden's question of Putin. I did not at all hear what you heard. Frankly, I am a very well trained musician and trust my ears, not those of others.

[MADem]

110. No, I heard the wind up and the pitch of a tee ball coach, easing the ball over the plate

for Little Vlad to hit it with the extra big "can't miss" bat.

Come on--you seriously think that was an honest and unscripted question? Amazing how Putin was able to respond to this "off the cuff" query with such aplomb...almost as if he KNEW THE QUESTION beforehand! Wow! That Vlad is one cool customer, isn't he? And wasn't it just so jazzy (a musical reference for you) how he referred to his buddy Ed as an intelligence operative, just like him?

You may be a musician, but that doesn't mean you're a good one--no offense. In this case, I believe you have a tin ear. You just might want to get those ears of yours checked, because you plainly didn't hear that question as well as Vladimir did.

[JDPriestly]

111. As I listend, Putin was quite taken aback. He even said something about not understanding the

accent. Putin stammered a bit. I think that Snowden thinks carefully about what he says and had thought out the question beforehand. I would have done the same. I heard a subsequent talk by Snowden. He seemed to say that the question was intended to be tough on Putin. I think it was. Putin even admits to some spying in his weaselly roundabout way saying that of course Russia's spying is not as technologically sophisticated as that of the US or something along that line.

I could be remembering it wrong. Listen to it again and you may agree with me.

[MADem]

118. No he wasn't. Good grief. That pitch was right over the plate and Pootie hit it outta the park.

Snowden's delivery is a total set-up. He looks a bit peeved, too--maybe he didn't think he'd have to sing quite so loudly for his supper. I'll bet Putin wrote the question!

Vlad replies with "professional language" because they're in the same biz ... "you are a former agent"....poor little Russia, they don't have big money like the mean ole USA....!!!!



You ARE remembering it wrong. You must be in enormous pain from all that bending over backwards to find any possible reason to excuse Vlad and company!

Putin OWNED that exchange. It was constructed to make him look not just good, but great.

[JDPriestly]

135. I think he looks bad.

[MADem]

137. If by "he" you mean Snowden, I agree. He looks SICK.

He looks like he's joined the raccoon club with those circles under his eyes, and his color looks off, too. Of course, that could be Russian tee vee, but I don't think so....

Putin, OTOH, looks smug, confident, large, and most definitely in charge. He'd better enjoy it while it lasts....everything, even facelifts, will fall eventually.

[JDPriestly]

142. No. Putin looked bad. Putin always looks smug, etc.

But for a moment there he was very flustered. Well, we shall see how this develops.

Putin would not dare throw Snowden out because Snowden is for Putin a prize to wave in front of Obama's face. The Obama administration was caught in some dirty tricks that are offensive to many knowledgeable Americans. Obama should have simply told the American people what was going on. If the NSA had a really good reason for doing what they are doing then the American people would not be so offended by the program. But to take money out of the food stamp and unemployment insurance programs when we already have so many, so shamefully many homeless people on our streets and to continue to invest money in this huge boondoggle program of collecting personal, some of it very personal, electronic data on American citizens (voters) is just shameful. Absolutely horrible.

For what purpose is all this data being collected and stored?

They are creating the proverbial haystack in which no pin will ever be found.
They are hoarding.

As an old lady who is constantly struggling to clean house and get rid of the stuff I have managed to collect in my life (I'd like to finally get rid of at least half of what clutters my closets) not knowing what my children might find valuable and what they will think is junk, I really do not understand why the NSA is hoarding so much data. I think it is kind of crazy. That is unless the purpose is to have control over the population. That was the case in totalitarian countries like the USSR (possibly Russia today. I doubt that they cleaned all their closets when their satellite countries separated from them), NAZI Germany, etc. It would be foolish to say it could never happen here. It could.

On edit: Have you read this?

We need to preserve the right to privacy. We cannot have representative government without the right to privacy. We also cannot have a functioning economy without privacy. This report explains just how difficult preserving privacy will be.

In an earlier post you spoke about the disregard for privacy in this time in which people talk loudly on their cell phones in public. But isn't that one of the most important aspects of privacy. The person who wishes to claim privacy limits what he or she says in the presence of others and chooses to say other things in the absence of others (of third parties).

Californians consider privacy to be very important.

Check this out: Just browse the list of laws that protect privacy in California. We even protect it in the California Constitution. Personal privacy is not dead. By no means. Eavesdropping is without a warrant particularly heinous. Recording a conversation without the consent of the person being recorded is also abominable.

[MADem]

145. I'm sorry--I am just NOT seeing what you claim to see.

No one else is, either--not even publications--and people-- that have supported Snowden, or at least given him the benefit of the doubt. Your desire colors your perception, I'm afraid.

This was a massive, decisive, no-shit PR "win" for Putin, and a terrible, horrible, PRE-RECORDED (to make it even worse) PR "lose" for Snowden--his desperate spinning ex post facto was a lame attempt to try to put a passable face on an horrific situation that he was either forced into or stupidly agreed to do. In Snowden's mind, as he reviews his performance I'm sure he's hearing the sound of the virtual Russian jail cell bars clanging shut. He probably is starting to realize that he can't go home again; indeed, he can't go much of ANYWHERE, ever again. If he wasn't an active participant in the situation that brought him to future Russian citizenship (assuming he continues to "play ball," as it were, he can spend the rest of his days blaming Julian Assange for "selling" him to Putin in exchange for Gawd Knows What.

Edward Snowden defends decision to question Vladimir Putin on surveillance
The NSA whistleblower says critics who accuse him of being a Kremlin patsy misinterpret his motives

...Snowden’s decision to take part in Putin’s annual live session, which traditionally features softball questions, prompted an outpouring of criticism against the former NSA contractor. He is in exile in Russia having been charged with three felonies by the US government in relation to the leak, including one count under the Espionage Act.

Stewart Baker, the NSA’s former general counsel, attacked Snowden in a post for Volokh Conspiracy blog on the Washington Post headlined “Snowden self-incriminates”. Baker wrote: “It sure looks as though Snowden is playing the Kremlin’s game here, serving up a pre-arranged softball on demand.”

Edward Lucas, a senior editor at the Economist who has attacked the leaker in an e-book called The Snowden Operation, told the Wall Street Journal the appearance had made him “look like a propaganda patsy of the Kremlin”. Lucas added that given how careful Snowden had been on this question, “it seems almost reckless. This raises all sorts of questions about the real conditions of his stay in Russia and his relationship with the Kremlin.”

Even some Snowden supporters voiced unease at his participation in the event. Jillian York, the director of international free expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has previously given numerous public talks in support of Snowden and the NSA revelations, tweeted: “Snowden's question WAS softball. If he knows as much as he claims, he would've known that the wording gave Putin an easy out.” ...

In Scripted Surprise, Putin Answers Snowden on Spying

MOSCOW — The setup could not have been more perfect.

...In a stunningly bold poke at the White House, the Kremlin arranged for Mr. Snowden, who is wanted on espionage charges, to ask Mr. Putin about Russia’s surveillance practices. Told there was a question from Mr. Snowden, Mr. Putin responded slyly, saying, “Well, how could we do without this?”


...Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. agent and director of the Russian intelligence service, played up their experience in spycraft.

“Mr. Snowden, you are a former agent,” the president replied. “I used to work for an intelligence service. Let’s speak in a professional language.”

“Our intelligence efforts are strictly regulated by our law,” Mr. Putin said. “You have to get a court’s permission first.” He noted that terrorists use electronic communications and that Russia had to respond to that threat....

Of course Putin "will never throw Snowden out." That's not even a subject for debate. He's a propaganda tool, and Snowden helped Putin ENORMOUSLY with his domestic "cred" with that shameful performance. But if you think Snowden will have unfettered access to media or any actual "freedom" under Putin's thumb in Russia, you're sadly mistaken and terribly naive. The only question is, is he there of his own (terribly stupid--and that doesn't seem right for someone supposedly so smart) free will, was he turned by the Russians way back when he was working in Japan and has he been a Russian agent all along, or did he trust Assange and miscalculate horribly after a panicked run from Hawaii after he realized that his clearance, with the bogus educational qualifications, was about to go through a full-bore re-vet?

The time to gripe about "privacy" was a long time ago, you know--back when private corporations starting demanding social security numbers (and people GAVE them) to obtain services like electricity, gas and cable. The horse has left the barn. If you participate in the "electronic" milieu, you cede your right to privacy, and anyone who thinks otherwise is terribly naive. The internet is like the food court at the mall--anyone who is determined can overhear your conversation, and if they are slick enough, you won't even be aware that they are listening. If you are determined to keep yourself private, give up driving, get off the grid, buy yourself a chunk of land way out in the middle of nowhere, be entirely self sufficient, and don't interact in any villages or towns that might have any street cameras, convenience store/grocery/Wal-mart cameras or anything of that nature. In order to not be recorded on any given day, most people need to stay in their homes--that IS--like it or not--the way it is these days, and that is not--no matter how much people gripe--going to change. The definition of "privacy" is shifting, and like I said, the time to gripe was about forty years ago. You might succeed in slowing the process down, or changing the procedures for accessing the data, but it's not gonna stop because someone has called for Marquis of Queensberry rulings on this matter. No shooting the messenger--that is a hard boiled assessment, I don't necessarily "like" it but I'm not so stupid to think that a magic wand is going to eliminate public, OR private, OR corporate, surveillance of individuals.

My comments about cell phone yammerers (that was a while ago, wasn't it? You had to look for that, I guess) was more about rudeness than privacy--I don't particularly want to hear the details of Uncle Mortie's hernia operation, or a spat between lovers, or a parent yelling at their wayward teen. I consider that kind of shit "noise pollution."

But back to the Snowden-Putin thing....that was a decisive "WIN" for the Pootster. Snowden's brand was badly damaged by his participation in that dog-and-pony cluster fuck, and if he's not embarrassed (and I think he IS--even if he is, worst case, a Russian agent, he has to recognize that the whole thing look ham-handed as hell) he should be. It's no wonder he's trying to crawl back from the humiliation, but it is what it is.

[Cha]

22. So touching of eddie to whine about us when he's being watched like a

mf hawk



Putin’s grip on the internet

snip//

The precedent of persecuting bloggers to silence them was set in 2008, a year after a blogger Savva Terentyev criticised police in a comment on a LiveJournal post he was sentenced to one year suspended sentence, article 282 of Russian Criminal Code for, “fomenting of social hatred” towards policemen. Since then, article 282, which covers actions provoking animosity and hatred towards certain religious, social, gender or national groups has been used to silence bloggers through the courts.

The other charge commonly used against internet users is “extremism” . Throughout Putin’s reign this charge has been used to target people who criticise the Kremlin — together with defamation and drug legislation. Russia’s Department of Presidential Affairs won three defamation lawsuits against newspaper Novaya Gazeta in just one week last year. All the articles talked about this authority’s controversial withdrawals from Russian budget and extremely high salaries of its staff. The editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov told Index that Kremlin has been using defamation suits as a censorship instrument.

snip//

Starting from 1 November 2012 Russian authorities won’t need a court ruling, like they did in the Terentyev case. Authorities will appeal to ISPs, like in the Rumyantsev case, create website blacklists and will be able to actually shut down anything they won’t like. Previously, a court ruling could make a website or the URL of a certain web content inaccessible in a specific region, while it stayed available in another.

Andrey Soldatov, an expert on Russian security services, notes that soon “the Kremlin will have at its disposal the facilities for blocking access to internet resources across the whole of Russia”, including Skype and Facebook."

http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/08/putins-russia-internet-censorship/

More recently..

snip// March 20, 2014

Putin ramps up Internet censorship, citing Google and Snowden to ensure public support

On March 13, a half-dozen highly trafficked opposition blogs and indie media outlets were suddenly blocked within Russia. The websites — including the highly respected Ekho Moskvy radio station and the blog of popular nationalist opposition politician, Alexei Navalny — received no notice of the impeding cutoff.

There was no court order, no trial, not even a public hearing. But there’s no doubt the move was official: Roskomnadzor, Russia’s mass media and telecommunications regulator, very publicly announced it in a directive to Russian ISPs, explaining that access to these websites must be blocked for extremism and for encouraging people to attend unsanctioned protests — in this case, against Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

This new formal power to unilaterally block access to any website comes via a brand new Internet censorship law that went into effect on February 1, 2014. It’s called the “Law of Lugovoi” — named after its author, State Duma Deputy Andrei Lugovoi, a scary ex-FSB officer-turned-Duma deputy who is better known as the prime suspect in the 2007 polonium assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in London.

Russia has refused to extradite Lugovoi to the UK to face trial and has instead allowed him to make a second career for himself as an ambitious legislator in Russia’s lower house of parliament. Lugovoi has put his personal stamp on plenty of bills, including ones that limit free speech and expand the power of the FSB. (He’s also know for periodically issuing veiled death threats against opposition politicians.)

http://pando.com/2014/03/20/putin-ramps-up-internet-censorship-citing-google-and-snowden-to-ensure-public-support/

Eddie's just another word for Putin personal anti-USA propaganda pipsqueak tool.

[MADem]

25. If any of the Proud Putin Puffer-Uppers would take the time to read those links, their heads would

explode.

Talk about cognitive dissonance!!!

[Cha]

26. A- they wouldn't read them. And, B- they wouldn't care if they did. All

hail to comrade snowden.

[sabrina 1]

29. Why, we don't live in Russia, we live HERE where we KNOW our government agencies are spying on

all of us. Why are YOU more concerned about OTHER countries than your own?

[MADem]

32. Not sure where you drew the conclusion that I'm "more concerned about OTHER countries"

but let me disabuse you of that notion.

[G_j]

50. I drew a similar conclusion

maybe you should read your own posts

[MADem]

51. And now you'll explain how you came to that conclusion. nt

[Major Hogwash]

162. Hahahahaha ---- no, he won't!

[MADem]

163. He's everywhere he wants to be!

In this thread answering a simple query ain't one of those places, though!

It never works to join the Pile On Crew without a tool or two to back up the braggadocio!

[JDPriestly]

53. We know that Russia spies on its citizens. That is not new. Russia does not pride itself on its

respect for the privacy and free speech of its citizens.

The US used to. It's really sad when we sink to the level of Russia.

What Russia does or does not do is rather unimportant to me. I live in America, and I want to know that my government respects my right to privacy unequivocally. That is the American way.

[treestar]

30. Exactly

Another provably untrue exaggerated statement.

[NanceGreggs]

39. You just don't get it, MADem!

Whatever Eddie says is to be accepted as 100% truthful and accurate.

Snowden says he could have accessed Obama's email. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says he could have watched what people were posting on the internet as they typed it. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says that he could monitor people's on-line purchases, and other internet activities. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden said he couldn't go to his superiors with his 'knowledge' of wrongdoing. Almost a year later, he suddenly remembered that he DID alert them via emails on the topic. Proof offered of having done so - zero.

Snowden now says that "entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance. It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing. It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.” Proof offered - zero.

Snowden felt compelled to disclose details of domestic spying - and the fact that he disclosed our country's spying tactics when it came to other countries was just innocent inadvertentance.

Snowden passed on hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to third parties without ever knowing what those documents contained, and what the consequences of those disclosures might be - because a "true patriot" doesn't give a shit about those kinds of details, or what's at stake.

Snowden "risked his life and his freedom" to inform his fellow citizens - including those SS and welfare moochers whom he openly despised, and those 'leakers' who deserved to be shot in the balls - of all of the wrongdoing he has yet to prove.

Above all, remember that it's not about the messenger, it's about the message - despite the fact that the "messenger" himself must be protected and defended at all costs - especially when the "message" turns out to be nothing more than unprovable generalities. i.e. "It's not about Snowden, it's about what he said." "But why should I believe him?" "Because he said so." "But who IS he, and where is his proof of what he's saying?" "It's not about him, it's about what he said."

It's the ultimate chicken-and-egg argument, played out on DU on a daily basis.

It's a game that can't be won. The Snowden Adoration Society is convinced that the Big Bad Gov't is collecting information on their every move, thought, word, and action - what they can't tell you is WHY such data is being scrutinized, by who, how, and for what purpose.

They can only tell you that they BELIEVE this kind of endless 'spying' is going on. And what they've learned from their hero Snowden is that no actual proof of anything is necessary. The only thing that IS necessary to be believed is to offer up an endless array of never-been-proven 'facts' and watch the truly gullible swear that those 'facts' are actual reality.

Why do they believe unproven asertions? Because Snowden said so. Who IS Snowden, and why should he be believed? "It's not about the messenger, it's about the message."

And the chicken-and-egg cycle goes on...

[MADem]

40. Now that post would make a superb thesis to start a thread... you hit the nail squarely on the head!

I agree completely--it's not about the messenger, who hasn't proven a single claim he's made!

#STANDING%20OVATION%2CGIF%20500x240

Come round more, you're so missed!!!!!

[Cha]

48. ..

[Vattel]

43. The message is in the classified information he stole.

That message has already embarrassed Obama enough that even Obama has jumped on the "reform the NSA" bandwagon.

[NanceGreggs]

44. Oh, I thought the message was about

informing the citizenry about wrongdoing within the NSA. Thanks for pointing out that it's really about embarrassing Obama.

Which it hasn't - just another fail in the Snowden tale.

But maybe when Eddie discloses the Obama emails he claimed to be able to access, all will be revealed. They're probably just buried under all those printouts showing who bought sequined flip-flops two summers ago, because that's just the kind of info the NSA plans to use to take over the country.

[Vattel]

73. Don't lie about what I said.

[aikoaiko]

86. And the jury results are in.....

On Sun May 4, 2014, 02:38 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Don't lie about what I said.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4907292

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Don't lie about what I said" is hurtful and rude because it is a false statement. NanceGreggs didn't lie about anything, but putting that type of comment in a subject line leaves the impression that NanceGreggs is a liar, which she's not. This is a thread-disrupting tactic that is hurtful and rude and it is a way to avoid discussion by substituting name - calling (liar liar).


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 4, 2014, 02:44 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Vattel is entitled to his interpretation of NanceGreggs and NanceGreggs can handle it .
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: i agree with alerter's comments concerning this post. One can disagree with an
opinion without accusing the person of lying.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nobody in his right mind thinks NanceGreggs is a liar, and this post won't convince anybody. I don't think the post violates anything.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: agree with the alerter

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Vattel]

89. I should have been more specific.

NanceGreggs said that I suggested that Snowden's message was about embarrassing Obama. I made no such claim.

[Marr]

99. Yeah, that was a ridiculous alert. If anyone deserved an alert there, it was

NanceGreggs with that intentional misrepresentation of your post.

[NanceGreggs]

101. I, too, should have been more specific.

What I was pointing out was the constant attempt by Snowden supporters to say that Obama has been "embarrassed" by Snowden's revelations, or that Obama suddenly "jumped on the bandwagon" as a result thereof.

The President was already publicly talking about the necessity for a national discussion about the surveillance program in place, and whether it infringed too much on privacy.

He gave a speech on the topic two weeks before Snowden's leak:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

One might even suspect that the timing of Snowden's initial leaks was prompted by Obama addressing the topic. Surely Greenwald et al realized that yelling "the NSA is spying on you!!!" would have much less impact if the President started addressing the idea of NSA overreach before the hair-on-fire brigade could be motivated to its usual fever pitch.

The facts about Snowden remain: He has made grandiose allegations about NSA surveillance, which he has yet to prove. He disclosed thousand upon thousands of sensitive documents to third parties without knowing their content or the consequences of their disclosure. He claimed that his 'mission' was to inform his fellow citizens about domestic surveillance, and then went on to disclose the nation's spying tactics on foreign nations. He claimed to NOT have alerted his superiors about what he found to be illegal or unethical because it would have been pointless to do so - and then, almost a full year later, did a complete 180 and claimed that he HAD indeed done exactly that, but apparently failed to save a single email that he'd allegedly sent. He claims altruistic motives in "risking his life and his freedom" to inform his fellow citizens - citizens he repeatedly referred to with utter contempt via his on-line persona, the True Hoo-Ha.

It's no wonder that the "it's not the messenger" meme was so quickly adopted by those confronted with Snowden's less-than-savoury character, but who didn't want to let go of their need for a hero.

[Vattel]

125. Correct me if I am wrong, but Obama doesn't even mention the NSA in that speech.

I read it quickly, and so maybe I missed something, but I didn't see any instance of his "talking about the necessity for a national discussion about the surveillance program in place, and whether it infringed too much on privacy."

He vaguely talked about the need to balance national security and privacy in intercepting communications in the US. Hardly an expression of any commitment to NSA reform or even to a national discussion of the issue.

What he said was this:

"That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse.

That means that -- even after Boston -- we do not deport someone or throw somebody in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension."

[NanceGreggs]

128. In other words ...

... when Obama talks about the need to "strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are," and, "reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse,", he ISN'T discussing the issue of surveillance, and what limitations on its use are appropriate?

He really isn't talking about what he is obviously talking about?

"He vaguely talked about the need to balance national security and privacy in intercepting communications in the US. Hardly an expression of any commitment to NSA reform or even to a national discussion of the issue."

I think that most reasonable people would agree that when the POTUS delivers a public speech about surveillance, he is obviously addressing the topic - something the Snowden Adoration Society keeps insisting their boy was the first to speak out about.

Apparently, Obama's remarks were about the weather. Because we wouldn't want to admit that Snowden DIDN'T start a conversation that had already been started by Obama, would we now?

The SAS's contention has been that Eddie "started the conversation" - apparently he didn't. Ergo, the need to move the goalposts to say that Obama's comments were "hardly an expression of any commitment to NSA reform or even to a national discussion of the issue."

No one was talking about "an expression of commitment" to anything. We were discussing the idea that Snowden started the discussion. He didn't; Obama did.

But keep moving those goalposts - it is a necessary action when one's argument has been shown to be without merit.

[Vattel]

130. Lol, nobody ever said that Obama had never

mentioned the need to balance liberty and privacy concerns with national security concerns. Talk about moving the goal posts. You provide no evidence whatsoever that Obama's reform proposals were not a consequence of Snowden's whistleblowing.

[NanceGreggs]

131. And the goalposts get moved yet again.

It has been the contention of the Snowdenistas that Obama only addressed surveillance concerns AFTER Eddie "started the conversation", prompting Obama to "jump on the bandwagon" and discuss it as well.

Obviously Obama "started the conversation" with a public speech addressing the appropriateness of the NSA's actions TWO WEEKS BEFORE Eddie ever opened his mouth.

"You provide no evidence whatsoever that Obama's reform proposals were not a consequence of Snowden's whistleblowing."

And you provide no evidence that his proposals WERE a consequence of Eddie's statements.

But there's a lot of that going around lately - people accepting everything Snowden says as gospel truth, despite the fact that he has yet to offer any proof of his allegations.

[Vattel]

132. Again, Obama didn't even mention the NSA in that speech.

So to say that he somehow started a national conversation on NSA surveillance with that speech is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? And to use that speech as evidence that his proposals for NSA reforms weren't a consequence of the very intense national conversation on NSA surveillance that obviously was generated by Snowden's revelations is a major fail.

[NanceGreggs]

133. No, you're right.

Obama was obviously talking about the weather when he spoke about "the need to balance national security and privacy in intercepting communications in the US." That comment had NOTHING to do with the NSA or surveillance.

This conversation is at an end. No matter what anyone says to a Snowden Adoration Society member, they will just keep ignoring any facts that prove inconvenient. As you have done throughout.

My mistake (and I admit to it readily) was attempting to have a rational conversation with a Snowdenista.

Let's not forget that it's "not about the messenger" after all - because the messenger has proven himself to be a liar, who has yet to prove a single one of his allegations.

That totally taints "the message", as far as I'm concerned. Your mileage obviously varies.

[Vattel]

140. I apologize for being unclear. What I should said is that Obama didn't mention the NSA by name.

(Although, now that you mention it, he was talking about law enforcement having the authorities it needs to intercept more American communications. FBI is a law enforcement agency, but NSA is not.)

Let's review what Obama said:

"Thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, but also build in privacy protections to prevent abuse."

Somehow you convince yourself (but I hope no one else) that these remarks mean that the "President was already publicly talking about the necessity for a national discussion about the surveillance program in place, and whether it infringed too much on privacy." Of course, that is false. Obama never mentioned the necessity for a national discussion about surveillance in that speech.

Furthermore, you are clearly mistaken to suppose that Obama's brief mention of the need to intercept more communications (while preserving privacy) in this speech is evidence that Snowden's revelations did not lead to Obama's proposals for NSA reform. Call me a crazy Snowdenista, but when I consider that Obama said nothing about the need for NSA reform until Snowden's leaks sparked an intense national conversation about the NSA, and only then did Obama appoint a panel to make reform recommendations, it seems rather likely that Snowden's leaks led to Obama's proposed reforms. The evidence is not conclusive, but if it looks like a duck . . .

[MADem]

149. NSA isn't "law enforcement" like the United States Marine Corps isn't "law enforcement."

They aren't in the gig because they like to arrange tea roses. They're using that resource because they want to do some enforcement of laws.

If you read the entire speech, which was given at the National Defense University (where they don't arrange tea roses, either), you will see that the context of his remarks was NOT limited to police or FBI "law enforcement." His comments covered a much wider swathe: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

This is what he said previous to your excerpt--this is plainly an international context, not simply domestic law enforcement:

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What is clear is that we quickly drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. And this carried significant consequences for our fight against al Qaeda, our standing in the world, and -- to this day -- our interests in a vital region.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

So after I took office, we stepped up the war against al Qaeda but we also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al Qaeda’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

This is what he said immediately following the excerpt you offered:

That means that -- even after Boston -- we do not deport someone or throw somebody in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the state secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counterterrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in-Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. That’s who we are. And I’m troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. And that’s why I’ve called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government overreach. And I’ve raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concerns. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and he’ll convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I’ve directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

It's obvious that he was thinking about, and acting on issues of reform across the board--in our conduct both domestically AND internationally-- well before anyone knew Snowden's name.

That's plainly evident if one reads the entire NDU speech.

[Vattel]

150. In everything you quoted, there is no mention of a national discussion on NSA surveillance.

The poster I was debating claimed, incorrectly, that in that speech Obama talked about the necessity for a national discussion on NSA surveillance.

You are correct, though, that he did mention surveillance independently of law enforcement. (My bad)

Obama has been talking about balancing security with liberty and privacy since his primary campaign in 2008. This speech was another instance of that. But he hadn't proposed any reforms of the NSA or called for a national discussion of NSA surveillance programs until Snowden's leaks sparked an intense national debate about those programs. So again, I think it is reasonable to suspect that Snowden's leaks led to Obama's reform proposals. I am open to seeing evidence to the contrary here, of course. There may well be loads of evidence that I am not aware of, but the other poster's attempt to point to that speech as evidence is what I was attacking.

[MADem]

164. No offense, but look at the doggone VENUE where he gave the speech.

He was at NDU, not the Daughters of the American Revolution, not even the FBI Academy.

What intelligence community-generated work product do the graduates of NDU use most often? Hint: It's not "police," it's not "FBI" -- and while it is sometimes CIA (less so, since we're pikers compared to the Russians in the HUMINT game), it's mostly NSA--they who prefer to not be named.

National Defense is their name, and national security is their game:

PURPOSE: "Educating, Developing and Inspiring National Security Leaders"

Education is our business
National security is the focus of our business
Leaders are the essence of our business

You don't have to keep repeating the phrase "State Police" if you're giving a talk at the State Police Academy, or repeat that "we're chefs" if you're speaking at the Culinary Institute of America. Nor do you need to tell a bunch of scholars at the National Defense University where they get their material, or what milieu they're working in.

A bit of situational awareness is helpful in parsing the meaning and flavor of the man's words.

[Vattel]

166. No offense, but you seem to be missing my doggone point.

I already conceded that the speech did address NSA surveillance. But my main point still stands. What he said in that speech did not include any mention of the necessity for a national discussion of NSA surveillance and it certainly didn't prove that Snowden's revelations did not lead to Obama's proposal to reform the NSA. That is what I was debating the other poster about. Why not enter into that discussion instead of continuing to pick on one little parenthetical remark in one of my posts?

[MADem]

171. His focus was on repairing abuses, not having a national chat about them.

The point is that this was on Obama's radar before Snowden grabbed a bunch of stuff and ran.

I'm not picking on one point, I'm urging you to read the ENTIRE speech from start to finish, and take note of where it was given; that provides the backdrop and the frame for his comments.

[Vattel]

172. Great, you agree with me that the other poster was

incorrect when she claimed that in the speech he was talking about the necessity of a national discussion about the NSA's surveillance programs.

Again, there is nothing in this speech that shows that Obama would have appointed a panel on NSA surveillance or introduced reforms without Snowden sparking a national discussion about those programs.

[MADem]

173. No, I don't agree with you because you keep moving the goalposts all over the field.

You initially denied that Law Enforcement included the NSA.

Frankly, a public speech at the NDU is having a "national discussion" in the sense that POTUS was articulating his position, to which policymakers and interested people with some knowledge and understanding of the playing field can reply. It's different than having an angst-ridden "chat" with every Tom, Dick and Harry with an opinion but no knowledge of the nuts-and-bolts of the National Security milieu. The former methodology produces cogent policy, the latter is a feel-good exercise to shut people up.

[Vattel]

175. I don't think you have followed the discussion here very closely.

MADem: His focus was on repairing abuses, not having a national chat about them.

Vattel: Great, you agree with me that the other poster was incorrect when she claimed that in the speech he was talking about the necessity of a national discussion about the NSA's surveillance programs.

MADem: No, I don't agree with you because you keep moving the goalposts all over the field.

Vattel: Huh? (scratches head)

The debate between me and the other poster was about whether Snowden's disclosures led to Obama's proposals for NSA reform. I think it is highly likely that the answer is yes. The other poster denied that Snowden's disclosures had anything to do with Obama's proposals for reform. Her only support for her claim was her further claim that in that speech prior to Snowden's disclosures Obama "was already publicly talking about the necessity for a national discussion about the surveillance program in place . . ." That claim is false and you seemed to agree with that when you said that "his focus was on repairing abuses, not on having a national chat about them." But now you deny that you agree with me and you just resort to accusing me of moving goalposts. You go on to move the goalposts by saying that that speech was part of a national discussion about national security issues. That is true but irrelevant. I see nothing in that speech that suggests that Obama was soon to unveil or even moving towards proposals for NSA reform. Maybe you do, but you might try to stay on point and discuss that rather than going off on irrelevant and kind of obnoxious tangents like the following:

MADem: It's different than having an angst-ridden "chat" with every Tom, Dick and Harry with an opinion but no knowledge of the nuts-and-bolts of the National Security milieu. The former methodology produces cogent policy, the latter is a feel-good exercise to shut people up.

Try reading more closely and you will be a more effective participant in discussions here.

[MADem]

180. I don't agree with that. The "discussion" or "conversation" was already happening.

It was happening in the halls of the policy makers and the people in analysis and journalism who had a grasp of the topic, though, not in the living rooms of people who don't have the full picture with regard to our National Security strategy, many of whom believe that Obama can see them through their TV or that the NSA is listening in on their phone calls, and is bugging their homes even when the phones are hung up.

All Snowden did was hype the drama with assertions that he has not proven.

I read very closely, and my take-away hasn't changed.

[Vattel]

181. So you don't agree with me that Obama wasn't talking about the necessity of a national discussion

on NSA surveillance programs in that speech. Lol, can't you just say unequivocally whether you agree with me on that point or not?

MADem: All Snowden did was hype the drama with assertions that he has not proven.

Really, that's all he did? Didn't the classified materials he exposed reveal a lot about what the NSA was doing? Those materials clearly did prove some of things he was saying about NSA capabilities and activities. And didn't those revelations generate an intense national discussion of NSA surveillance programs that probably led to Obama's panel and ultimately to his reform proposals? Come on, do you really think we would have seen that panel or those proposals without Snowden's disclosures? Do you at least concede that Obama would not be telling Merkel that we won't listen to her phone calls again had Snowden not revealed that we were listening?

[Cha]

47. Thank you for laying this all out in black and white, NanceG..

I'm putting your post link and a snip in my message and adding it to my journal so I can reference it handily. It makes my head swim and so appreciate your effort to write out what's been being pulled on DU by SAS..

Snowden and Greenwald are lucky they have willing customers who don't ask questions. Not so lucky that everyone isn't like them.

snip//

"Whatever Eddie says is to be accepted as 100% truthful and accurate.

Snowden says he could have accessed Obama's email. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says he could have watched what people were posting on the internet as they typed it. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden says that he could monitor people's on-line purchases, and other internet activities. Proof offered - zero.

Snowden said he couldn't go to his superiors with his 'knowledge' of wrongdoing. Almost a year later, he suddenly remembered that he DID alert them via emails on the topic. Proof offered of having done so - zero.

Snowden now says that "entire populations, rather than just individuals, now live under constant surveillance. It's no longer based on the traditional practice of targeted taps based on some individual suspicion of wrongdoing. It covers phone calls, emails, texts, search history, what you buy, who your friends are, where you go, who you love.” Proof offered - zero.

Snowden felt compelled to disclose details of domestic spying - and the fact that he disclosed our country's spying tactics when it came to other countries was just innocent inadvertentance.

Snowden passed on hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to third parties without ever knowing what those documents contained, and what the consequences of those disclosures might be - because a "true patriot" doesn't give a shit about those kinds of details, or what's at stake."

The rest.. by Nance Greggs~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4906134

[JDPriestly]

55. Why do I believe Snowden and disbelieve the NSA?

Why do I disbelieve the NSA?

1) They have a pecuniary interest in lying about the spying. It's their job. They get paid for spying on Americans. If they admitted what they are doing, really admitted the full extent of it, they could well lose their jobs. They might even be forced to escape to Russia where it would, in an ironic turn of events, be they who would be under surveillance.

2) They could face severe penalties if they told the truth.

3) They have the option of proving exactly what they do and do not do. All they would have to do is open their program up for public scrutiny. Simple. That they have not done that makes me doubt their veracity.

Why do I believe Snowden?

1) Because he has nothing to gain by lying. He brought documents out of the NSA. Either what he says will be confirmed in those documents or not. But he knows that if the documents do not support his claims, people will not believe him. In those circumstances, why would he bother to lie?

2) He will not get any additional money by lying. Maybe a few prizes, but no money. The prizes will soon be forgotten. Snowden is stuck in Russia. Snowden again has nothing to gain by lying.

3) If Snowden is lying, again, the NSA could prove it and make him look like a fool if they opened up their files and records to the public and showed precisely what the limits are on what they do. That would not be so difficult. The programs haven't really caught many terrorists. It's hard to say what they do achieve. It's hard to determine what the NSA's goal is. Certainly nothing commensurate with the tax money spent on them. Why doesn't the NSA present real evidence rather than just statements that would place doubt on Snowden's revelations?

To me, it is just logical to trust Snowden more than the NSA. The NSA has lied before. Clapper lied to Congress. The NSA is not to be trusted.

Maybe Snowden realized that and for that reason decided to leave the NSA with the documents.

[Egnever]

56. LOL

1) Because he has nothing to gain by lying. He brought documents out of the NSA. Either what he says will be confirmed in those documents or not. But he knows that if the documents do not support his claims, people will not believe him. In those circumstances, why would he bother to lie?

I dont know if you are intentionally trying to be funny here or not but you made me laugh out loud just the same with that tripe.

[NanceGreggs]

67. My favourite portion of the tripe ...

"They have the option of proving exactly what they do and do not do. All they would have to do is open their program up for public scrutiny. Simple. That they have not done that makes me doubt their veracity."

You see, it's so simple. They just have to PROVE what they're NOT doing.

And really, who wouldn't doubt the veracity of a department of the gov't charged with keeping certain things secret unless they're willing to open their program up to public scrutiny?

Jesus Hussein Christ. The total lack of logic is mind-blowing.

[Marr]

100. The post you quoted is a demand for greater transparency, not the proving of a negative. /nt

[NanceGreggs]

106. It IS asking for proof of a negative.

How does the NSA "prove" that it's NOT doing something?

Let me give you a hypothetical: Have you ever been to a bar in Nova Scotia called "The Pipe & Pickle"? If your answer is NO, and I ask you to prove you've never been there, the only way you could do so would be to show evidence of your whereabouts elsewhere for every minute of your life.

The mandate of the NSA is to keep certain operations secret. How do they go about maintaining that necessary secrecy while, at the same time, accounting for their every move in order to prove that what Snowden has alleged has never taken place?

And let's not be coy. If the NSA DID adopt a posture of greater transparency, would the Snowden Adoration Society accept that the NSA has never done what Snowden alleges they do? We both know that cries of "they're just hiding their malfeasance while pretending to be more transparent" would be all over DU.

It is no coincidence that the "Obama is a POS used care salesman" crowd hang onto Snowden's every word, and the fact that he has yet to prove his allegations is, to them, of little or no importance. The man's character is of little or no importance. The man's actions are of little or no importance. The man's contradictory statements are of little or no importance. The man's obvious lies are of little or no importance.

The only thing that IS of importance to the Snowden-is-a-national-hero fans is that they have someone to believe in, someone they think will put Obama in the worst possible light.

I do appreciate the irony of hearing Snowden fans accusing Obama supporters of being "blind worshippers" - while they themselves swallow every Snowden statement as gospel, without so much as a modicum of proof to back up his allegations.

[Marr]

113. No, it isn't.

The post specifically refers to 'opening up a program to public scrutiny'.

That's not a demand for the NSA to prove that it isn't doing X-- it's a demand for the NSA to demonstrate that a specific program or set of programs don't do X.

One is a logical impossibility, and the other is the basic function of any oversight process.

[NanceGreggs]

121. Again, how does the NSA 'prove' ...

... that a specific program doesn't do X without revealing what that specific program DOES do - which is confidential information?

And yet again, would the Snowden fans EVER take the NSA's word for it? I think we both know the answer to THAT question: No, they would not.

The Snowden Adoration Society has ignored his exaggerations, his lies, his behaviour, his unproven statements. They have tied themselves into pretzels in order to "explain" his every word and every deed as being misinterpreted, mis-represented, mis-judged.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that if the NSA offered anything by way of proof that Snowden's allegations have no basis in fact, his fans would simply admit they'd been misled?

Yeah, fat chance of that. The SAS has dug its heels in, and nothing - NOTHING - will ever satisfy them in terms of proving their hero to have been a liar all along. To do so would be to admit having been led down the garden path by a blatant liar - and there is no way in hell they are ever going to admit any such thing.

That was what spawned the "it's not the messenger, it's the message" meme. It was an admission by the SAS - when confronted with undeniable evidence that Snowden was not the Great American Hero they'd initially declared him to be - that "the messenger's" character was of no import in assessing the truthfulness of what he had to say.

I, for one (and I know I am not alone), believe that when someone has been proven to be a liar, trying to convince others that "this one time he's telling the truth" doesn't quite cut it.

How many times have DUers responded to an article they don't agree with by saying "consider the source", as they go on to point out the unreliability of that source? Why does Snowden get a pass when HIS reliability as a source is questioned?

The statement It's not about the messenger, it's about the message was the last resort of those who know "the messenger" is untrustworthy, but still want to insist that "the message" has zero to do with the messenger who delivered it.

[Marr]

124. That is the point. The specifics of these programs need to be more widely disclosed.

The officials in charge have already been caught lying about what these programs do. Obviously, more transparency is needed.

[NanceGreggs]

129. So the specifics of a program

meant to protect secret information needs to more widely disclose that information?

Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

You still haven't addressed the fact that NO amount of transparency would convince the Snowden Adoration Society that their boy was caught lying - or was even mistaken. They will defend his truthiness to the death. They have already made clear that he need not offer a scintilla of evidence to have his allegations believed without question.

So let's stop pretending that if the NSA threw open its doors and invited everyone to scrutinize their every operation, the SAS wouldn't still claim that they're hiding something.

Snowden's fan base has decided, without any proof thereof, that he is the ultimate truth-teller. And NO amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince them of the contrary.

[Marr]

139. If you disagree that more transparency is needed, you disagree with Obama's public position.

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/17/263469103/obama-calls-for-more-transparency-privacy-protections-at-nsa

I didn't address your hypothetical situations, nor do I intend to. They're little more than insults directed at people you don't like-- let's be honest.

[NanceGreggs]

141. And I said no more transparency is needed

exactly where?

We weren't discussing the need or not for transparency. We were discussing what lengths the NSA would have to go to in order to "prove" that they AREN'T doing something. To do that would require things that go well beyond the bounds of appropriate transparency.

I'll be very honest about people I don't like. I don't like Snowden. Not even a little bit.

But my liking him or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that he has made allegations he has never proven, and his fans accept his every word as the indisputable truth, regardless of that fact.

That's really the story here. And it's a sad tale.

[Marr]

143. We need to know what these programs do, specifically--

or we don't know that they aren't driving over basic privacy rights. To assume they're just fine, when officials have already been caught outright lying to Congress about what they do, is unreasonable. When those lies were largely highlighted by Snowden's information, I fail to see why you would so doggedly criticize people who give his claims credence, while trusting government officials.

You're responding to people who say we need to know what the NSA is doing in the realm of domestic spying with, 'nothing will ever satisfy you, so shut-up'. That doesn't seem like the position of someone who wants greater transparency.

[NanceGreggs]

161. I'm not telling anyone to shut up ...

... despite the fact that in some cases, I wish they would.

I was merely pointing out that there are some people who, once they have been convinced of something, will never be convinced otherwise. That is the case with many who believe the NSA is spying on everyone, all the time, everywhere. No amount of scrutiny or transparency will ever satisfy them. Think about the Birthers - they have been shown mountains of irrefutable proof that Obama was born in Hawaii - but they just cling to the idea he was born in Kenya, no evidence to the contrary being of any consequence.

I was certainly not responding to "people who say we need to know what the NSA is doing in the realm of domestic spying" - those people have legitimate concerns, and it is a topic that should be discussed.

However, the problem here on DU is that no one can discuss the topic without 100% belief in Snowden being used as a litmus test of true concern. I've seen many posts here where people have invited discussion of the issue as a stand-alone topic. But the Snowdenistas immediately dismiss even the possibility of discussion by challenging anyone who refuses to swear an oath of fealty to the man himself, or expresses any doubt in his veracity.

Can one be truly concerned about NSA overreach that impacts on personal privacy at the same time they don't give Snowden's allegations much credence? Common sense dictates that one can. But that is a position that has become unacceptable here - you're either 100% on-board with every word Snowden has uttered OR you are 100% FOR unfettered domestic spying. There is no in-between allowed; there is no middle ground between positions that are as extreme on one side as they are on the other.

That's why the "it's not the messenger, it's the message" meme is absurd on its face. There is a very loud group here who refuse to even discuss the message without demanding unquestioned loyalty to the messenger - you know, the one who they keep saying it's NOT about.

DU has become a black-and-white world, where shades of gray don't even exist. And that is not conducive to 'discussion' about anything.

[MADem]

174. I love a nuanced conversation!

You're right that they're like hens' teeth around these parts. The fan club has a theme song, and if we don't go along, we're on the outs!

Everybody sing!!!!

Unrelated side bar--the geeky guy to the viewer's right of the pretty lead singer is none other than the murdering Phil "Wall of Sound" Spector! Talk about talent and evil, all wrapped up in one dorky package...!!!

[NanceGreggs]

70. Well ...

"Why doesn't the NSA present real evidence rather than just statements that would place doubt on Snowden's revelations?"

Why doesn't Snowden present real evidence rather than just statements that would place doubt on the NSA?

"To me, it is just logical to trust Snowden more than the NSA. The NSA has lied before."

Snowden insisted for almost a year that he "couldn't" alert his superiors about what he perceived to be wrongdoing within the NSA. Now he claims he DID alert them via emails. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? Or are we to believe that while he was smart enough to steal hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents, he couldn't steal his own emails that would prove he'd done what he now suddenly remembers he did?

"He has nothing to gain by lying."

So people should just believe what anyone says - no matter how outrageous, how ridiculous, how utterly unbelievable - if it appears they have nothing to gain by lying?

"But he knows that if the documents do not support his claims, people will not believe him."

People (like yourself) already believe him - without any documents that support his claims. So for people like you, obviously no proof is necessary.

And if he had documents that DID prove his claims, why didn't he release them immediately for the good of the people he "risked his life and liberty" to inform? He has said that's why he did what he did. So why are we still waiting for those documents which he claims are full of information the public has a right to know?

"Either what he says will be confirmed in those documents or not."

Exactly. So again, why are we still waiting, almost a year after his claims of having the documents that prove him right, for the DOCUMENTS THAT PROVE HIM RIGHT? Maybe it's because "he knows that if the documents do not support his claims, people will not believe him."

In other words, as long as he keeps those documents that might prove he was lying undisclosed, no one can prove he was lying.

[randome]

76. Well said, Nance!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[COLGATE4]

123. +1

[COLGATE4]

122. K&R. Nance hits it out of the park - again. nt

[Charlos]

13. Many people, not everyone though

Not those who do not use the Internet.

[sabrina 1]

15. If they use a phone, Verizon et al are 'collecting and storing their data'. So unless people

stop using their computers and phones they ARE being spied on.

[Egnever]

54. Welcome to technology

Get used to it and act accordingly or unplug. Tech isn't going away.

[Live and Learn]

23. If you use a car, they are tracking and storing

where you have been via license plate scanners.

[bvar22]

24. “Be it resolved state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms.”

Give up our Freedom so that we protect our Freedom?

Before the debates began, 33% of the audience voted in favour of the debate statement and 46% voted against. It closed with 59% of the audience siding with Greenwald and Ohanian.

Franklin answered this a long time ago:
[font size=3]"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.[/font]--- Ben Franklin

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[sabrina 1]

31. Those are some radical ideas. Are you sure they didn't come from RT or Al Jazeera?

Lol, amazing isn't it, how the 'left' has suddenly taken the position of the 'right' on these issues. Well, a small part of the 'left' I suppose.

[bvar22]

36. Phony "Left".

Well Off Democrats who "relate" to Moderate Republican Policy.
I can't stomach that BS.

[BlindTiresias]

68. They were never left to begin with.

They are likely far right people who think that a mild potpourri of social issues count as leftism. They are essentially "Authoritarian Right Wngers with a Human Face".

[Maedhros]

80. Compassionate Conservatives, then? [n/t]

[BlindTiresias]

85. I would say

Compassionate conservatives are a purely republican phenomenon. These dems are something altogether different and much more dangerous.

[Maedhros]

93. Shameless party mercenaries? [n/t]

[MohRokTah]

34. Snowden isn't a whistleblower. eom

[marions ghost]

35. Hayden and Dershowitz lost the debate tho...

"Greenwald sparred with Dershowitz and Hayden about whether or not the present method of metadata collection would have prevented the terrorist attacks on 11 September, 2011.

While Hayden argued that intelligence analysts would have noticed the number of telephone calls from San Diego to the Middle East and caught the terrorists who were living illegally in the US, Greenwald argued that one of the primary reasons the US authorities failed to prevent the attacks was because they were taking in too much information to accurately sort through it all.

Before the debates began, 33% of the audience voted in favour of the debate statement and 46% voted against. It closed with 59% of the audience siding with Greenwald and Ohanian."

[NanceGreggs]

115. Well, that settles it then.

If 59% of a debate audience sides with someone who alleges that the earth is flat, the earth being flat must be true.

That is, unfortunately, DU in a nutshell. The 'truth' is what the majority here say it is - it has nothing to do with facts.

A non-fact posted in an OP that gets 100+ plus "recs" means the non-fact has now become a fact - because if it wasn't a fact, it wouldn't have that many recs.

Right?

[marions ghost]

144. Yep--it indicates that Greenwald & co won

this particular debate against formidable opposition in Dershowitz and Hayden. The Snowden supporters convinced a majority present, of their position.

Dershowitz and Hayden argued that the data collection isn't happening at all, which is a really lame position. Looks like the audience was very skeptical of that. The fact that more people in attendance believed the Snowden supporters is a fact. The fact that more DUers are Snowden supporters than not, is a fact. And the fact that most DUers are fairly sharp and perceptive is a fact. Adds up.

When you've read the transcript of the whole debate, get back to me.

But go ahead and keep peddling your pathetic anti-DU snark. It doesn't support your anti-Snowden stance Nance. Just makes you look like you've got no facts.

[NanceGreggs]

146. I still don't know what point you think you're making.

So a debate audience was convinced of something. So what? What does that prove? Millions of FOX-News watchers have been 'convinced' that Obama was born in Kenya. Does that mean he WAS born in Kenya, because people are convinced of it?

The only one who doesn't seem to have any facts is Snowden. He keeps asserting what he says are 'facts', but never offers any evidence to back up what he's asserting. Just because he's 'convinced' the gullible that he knows what he's talking about doesn't mean shit.

So more DUers than not are Snowden supporters? Again, so what? Is the truth a matter of popular vote on a website? If 100% of DUers supported the idea that the sun rises in the south and sets in the north, would that make it a fact?

Your 'point' about people being convinced of something is really rather - well, pointless.

[marions ghost]

147. The truth

may actually be "a matter of popular vote on a website." Who do you trust to acknowledge the hard lessons we all must face about this country--others who think like you, right? What other authority do you go to about this matter? The NSA and its supporters are horrified that we even know about what they do at all. There is no higher authority in this than the court of public opinion, unless you want to live in a Big Daddy state where everything is decided for us children?

The evidence before us in this case is damning. You know the arguments. No point in repeating them over and over. Given what we know now, thanks to Snowden & others, it is likely that the NSA is violating all notions of privacy and protection of US citizens. People have a hard time believing that because it conflicts with their sense of order and safety. Denial is easier.

As for the comparison with FOX watchers--well--ha ha, that's another level of denial. I'm sure you can't be making a serious comparison with Fox and DU.

[NanceGreggs]

157. No, the 'truth' is not a matter of popular vote.

It is what it is. The 'truth' is not made non-true by the court of public opinion, nor is it determined based on how many people on a website declare it true or not.

The 'evidence' in this case is what people hear Snowden asserting, and they take his every word at face value. Proof of his many claims has still not been forthcoming.

I think that in many cases - and the Snowden situation is a good example - many DUers are comparable to FOX adherents. They, too, simply dismiss facts that don't validate what they've come to believe - in the same way that many DUers have dismissed any facts that point to Snowden being not what he claims to be, or not knowing what he claims to know.

What is going on or not going on within the NSA is a completely separate topic. But to hear some here tell it, if one doesn't swallow Snowden's story whole, they are "in denial", or are NSA-hawks (!), or they don't care what goes on within the NSA.

"What other authority do you go to about this matter?" Well, I can tell you one thing for sure. I don't go to a man who has been caught in contradictions and out-and-out lies, a thief who stole and then disseminated sensitive documents to third parties without even knowing their content, a traitor who shared our spying tactics with other nations, a self-serving narcissist who keeps making sweeping claims that he never backs up.

And please don't resort to the "it's not the messenger, it's the message" routine. When the messenger has proven himself to be a liar, the message is probably no more truthful than the messenger himself.

[marions ghost]

159. Everyone has the tendency

to "dismiss facts that don't validate what they've come to believe"--even you. You got zero evidence for your bogus allegations. I've looked at the Snowden material and find it credible, along with a lot of other people here and elsewhere. So you and I are never going to come to any point of agreement. If you want to go on defending the rogue outfit known as the NSA, go ahead, but it's the NSA that are the liars, with illegalities and invasions of privacy going on for years in the name of national security. Taking full advantage of the wide open digital age to do what they were charged to do--"Collect it All." Vacuum it up and the hell with civil liberties. And whatever you think of him, Snowden has succeeded in bringing the issue to our attention.

"Duers are as bad as Fox" is again, insulting. I'd better sign off before I sink to the level of your snark.

[NanceGreggs]

160. What this place has become ...

... in a nutshell:

"If you want to go on defending the rogue outfit known as the NSA, go ahead ..."

I said nothing that could be remotely construed as a defense of the NSA. In fact, what I DID say is
that "what is going on or not going on within the NSA is a completely separate topic."

But this is the way DU works nowadays - unless you are a Snowden worshipper, you are automatically defending the NSA.

I see people here constantly stating that it's not about the messenger, it's about the message, so why can't we discuss the NSA's conduct in and of itself, regardless of whether one believes all of Snowden's
allegations, some of them, or none of them?

Well, the reason no one can 'discuss' anything about possible domestic spying is because the Snowdenistas use one's belief or non-belief in Eddie as the pivotal point in every conversation. "You're either with us or against us." Have a familiar ring?

The real world recognizes that there is a myriad of shades of gray between one extreme position on an issue and the opposite extreme. DU no longer allows for shades of gray; if you are not 100% on-side with something, you are automatically deemed to be 100% on-board with the exact opposite position.

That is no different than RWers saying if you are against prayer in school, you hate all Christians; if you are not against abortion, you think all fetuses should be aborted; if you aren't pro-war, you are anti-America.

As for "zero evidence for my bogus allegations", I said that Snowden has been caught in contradictions and lies (which is true), a thief who stole and then disseminated sensitive documents to third parties without even knowing their content (which is true), a traitor who shared our spying tactics with other nations (which is true), and a self-serving narcissist who keeps making sweeping claims that he never backs up (which is true).

Those are not allegations; those are known facts. Even some of his staunchest supporters here acknowledge that he has done those things. They offer up reasons or excuses for his actions, but they don't deny the facts of the matter.

With that, I will leave you to your little black-and-white world, where refusing to worship at the feet of Eddie means one is in total agreement with unfettered domestic spying.

[MADem]

165. Yes, yes and YES!

I love a little INTELLIGENCE --to say nothing of graceful nuance--in the early morning hours!!!

Thank you so much for providing it--you've no idea how much it means!

[Bobbie Jo]

170. Bravo!

[Maedhros]

152. So...

The great majority of DUers, former whistleblowers like Ellsberg, major awards committees (Pulitzer, Polk) and a number of U.S. Senators (Wyden, Udall) are all just "gullible?"

That's a might high horse you're on there, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

155. I consider people who take Snowden's "word for it" ...

... without evidence to support his assertions, to be gullible, yes.

It has nothing to do with high horses. It has to do with common sense.

Millions of people are "taken in" every year by hucksters, liars, schemers, due to misplaced trust. It's a usually as a result of giving someone the benefit of the doubt because they've presented themselves as scrupulously honest, having altruistic motives, etc.

Snowden has been dishonest from the beginning, his character is less than savoury, his conduct deplorable, and his motives highly suspect. His claims have been grandiose, to say the least - but he offers no proof to back them up, nor even an explanation of how the things he asserts are accomplished.

According to Snowden, he "could have" done this, or "could have seen that", or "could have accessed that" - well, "could have" doesn't do it for me, especially when he produces no evidence that he "could have" done any such thing.

There is one fact about Snowden that stands out above all else: he claims his 'mission' was to inform his fellow citizens of wrongdoing. Disseminating hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents to third parties without even knowing what they contain, what use will be made of the information therein, or the consequences of their disclosure, just doesn't square with the lofty idealism and concern for his fellow citizens that he wants to lay claim to.

Well-educated, well-informed, intelligent people are often the victims of flim-flam men. Saying that millions of people trust Snowden does not, in and of itself, make him trustworthy.

[Maedhros]

156. Um...he provided a lot of evidence to support his assertions.

You just choose not to believe it, which is your prerogative.

I'm unmoved by anti-Snowden polemics, though.

[NanceGreggs]

158. As I am unmoved

by the Snowden Adoration Society.

Snowden has made many, many sweeping claims with absolutely NO evidence to back them up. When the messenger can't be trusted, the message he claims to deliver is not trustworthy either.

[arely staircase]

38. especially him nt

[greytdemocrat]

41. Meh

Assuming truth, there must be some really bored analysts.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. If the NSA knows who do you love, they know much.

For instance, that means they know that I walked fortyseven miles of barbed wire,
that I've got a cobra snake for a necktie,
Plus, a brand new house on the roadside, made outta rattlesnake hide.

[Egnever]

57. Good lord

Look at meeee!

[BlindTiresias]

60. Maybe the anti-snowden crew

Would be better served by just joining the right wing already. They certainly seem to place their sympathies there, mostly.

[marions ghost]

148. True

I haven't seen one of their arguments on this issue that doesn't line up with right wing thinking.

[DCBob]

71. Seems snowden wasn't geting enough attention so he upped the ante.

He needs to provide documented evidence otherwise I wont believe it.

[Sunlei]

72. must be our banks and our phone services who share our phone bill and our bank statements with

our Gov.

Every month I get a phone bill, they know exactly who I've communicated with. My bank too, has a record of every transaction. They know exactly where you live and who you are. You can't even open a bank account without ID, and phone companies require in person /with ID to activate a new phone account.

[B Calm]

74. Why does this Bozo get so much attention?

[Jamaal510]

90. Sensationalism sells. nt

[WatermelonRat]

75. See, this is why Snowden rubs me the wrong way.

His initial leaks exposed overreach in surveillance and a system with great potential for abuse. That is a good thing (the leak, I mean, not the abuse and overreach). But then he hypes it up into tall tales like this that his leaks don't support.

[Maedhros]

81. I've followed this issue very closely since it first arose.

The leaked documents support his statements.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. You've seen them all?

[marions ghost]

153. Right

and they have from the beginning, very consistently.

[Maedhros]

154. "But then he hypes it up into tall tales like this that his leaks don't support."

New talking point. I expect to see this repeated a lot.

(Well, maybe I won't - I have most of the people who will repeat it on ignore)

[marions ghost]

168. Yeah new right wing talking point

from the pro NSA / anti-Snowden contigent around here. And they're working it hard, their goal being division and disruption.

They argue their talking points but they never support their arguments and if discussion even happens, they snare you in an endless loop.

It's important not to tangle with them because that's a losing game, but they do deserve brief rebuttals from time to time.

[aquart]

104. Especially Snowden, I'd guess.

[Boomerproud]

127. I hope I bore the assholes to tears.

BTW, if y'all are watching....I need a job.

[MrScorpio]

167. I wonder why never talks about private commercial surveillance

And exclusively talks about what the government does.

Is he cool with corporate mass intrusion?

[marions ghost]

169. Corporate mass intrusion is related and complicit

...Snowden worked for the govt so he comes at it from that end.

We are bought and sold by Corporate --and people are naive enough to think it's just about a few popup ads. That's how govt is able to do it so easily. Because people have already conceded to Corporate.

[djean111]

178. I don't think he needs to address all surveillance. That is not where he was working.

Anyway, since Obama is asking for immunity for corporations who serve up our information to the NSA on a platter, it is clear that the NSA is wallowing in corporate mass intrusion.

[DontTreadOnMe]

177. So if the government is watching everyone...

why is there not more people prosecuted for crimes...especially corporate... that are happening every day?

It would seem that things like "insider trading" would be easy to catch, if we were we ALL UNDER "CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE".

1. Because they can't watch everything
2. The government is obviously ignoring certain crimes
3. "constant surveillance" is a term for the paranoid