General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"I grow impatient..."
I grow impatient with the argument that all -- or even most, or even a great deal -- of what Edward Snowden released from his time at the NSA is no big deal because we all knew it before, or because we all should have known it anyway. This is not entirely because I am tempted to use the facile argument that, if it's no big deal, and if we all knew it anyway, then why can't they just immunize Snowden and let him come home? Maybe I'm naive, or stupid, but it's also because the intelligence community -- and the all-too-human, but curiously error-prone heroes therein -- have spent most of my 60 years on this planet proving to be utterly unworthy of my trust, and utterly unworthy of the trust of a democratic society. They lie. They violate their mandates, over and over again. They have developed within themselves a complete disregard for constitutional safeguards because of a messianic sense of mission that insulates them from the rule of law. All of these dangerous elements, of course, were intensified in the wake of the atrocities committed on September 11, 2001.
They plot and they scheme and they bungle, after which somebody else's kid pays the price, and they anoint themselves with oil in the aftermath, and then they go on to the next big idea. They do not believe they are subject to the same rules as anyone else in the government, let alone the rest of their fellow citizens. They've managed to enlist most of the people in Congress who are supposed to be conducting oversight of their activities in giving them the benefits of hundreds of doubts of which they have proven themselves completely unworthy. The only weapon an informed citizenry has is information. Given the choice between knowing something and not knowing something, I choose to know it, whoever the messenger is, because the people who have that information forfeited my trust somewhere between the Bay of Pigs and the white paper on Iraqi weapons. That does not make me free, but it gives me the wherewithal to be free.
- Charles P. Pierce
The rest: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/snowden-effect-051414
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
1000words
(7,051 posts)But nothing will be said about the point that has been presented.
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)from the unconstitutional actions of the administration.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Professional Posters of Nonsense.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)
lark
(23,078 posts)
bigtree
(85,984 posts). . . and work overtime to denigrate anyone who dares to express agreement or support for the man and interest or concern with the information that's been provided. The defensive govt. cabal and their minions outside of government have adopted the internet warriors' snarky and dismissive tone, seeking to divide the community into what they hope are folks still fearful of their boogeymen against those they hope to smear as nutcases or conspiracy theorists.
In my mind, opposition to government spying on U.S. citizens can hardly ever come even close to the damage done to our society by the unaccountable and reckless information-gathering that's been revealed by Snowden. If anything, those revelations have actually sparked whatever reforms that are being considered and underway. That should make it obvious to everyone in the way of that wanton and seemingly unlimited appetite of government spy agencies to pry and snoop wherever they're able, just where their affinities and support should lie.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
frylock
(34,825 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*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.
"Those who would sacrifice essential freedoms for temporary safety deserve neither."
---Ben Franklin
chervilant
(8,267 posts)that the corporate megalomaniacs -- who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy -- have no interest in us beyond how much more profit we can make for them.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)What is the NSA really for?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024215519
"Clear evidence of collusion between TransCanada and the federal government assisting local police to unlawfully monitor and harass political protestors”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023049508
Corporate Espionage and the Secret War Against Citizen Activism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111643982
NSA Spying Not Very Focused on Terrorism: Power, Money and Crushing Dissent Are Real Motives Ops
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023923016
Keiser Report: CIA, NSA & Economic Espionage (E498) (second half with Greg Palast)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017146372
Spooky Business: Corporate Espionage Against Non-profits
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024106205
NSA data could be most useful for connected types on Wall Street.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022983519
NSA spied on EU's Anti Trust Chief
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024204596
2011: Wall Street firms spy on protesters with police in tax-funded center
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023286585
OUTRAGEOUS: Our Tax Money Funds Gov Surveillance Center In Lower Manhattan--& Wall St Is Part Of It!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2178769
Report Details How Counter Terrorism Apparatus Was Used to Monitor Occupy Movement Nationwide
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12527647
NSA Monitors Porn Habits To Discredit 'Radicalizers'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024099994
How FBI Monitored Occupy Movement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101651867
FBI started surveillance of Occupy before it occupied
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022930860
Wall Street Protesters Complain of Police Surveillance
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101618930
Whoop, There It Is... 'Evidence Homeland Security Coordinated Occupy Crackdown' -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002462465
ACLU discovers FBI is labeling peace activists as 'potential terrorists'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4500788
Why is FBI Manufacturing Reasons to Arrest Occupy Protesters, Ignoring White Supremacist Violence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12522821
DHS Tracked Occupy Wall Street to 'Control Protesters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101463537
'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials
http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in-minneapolis/were-occupy-crackdowns-aided-by-federal-law-enforcement-agencies
FBI uses new powers to bug anti-war groups
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x237625
ACLU: FBI instructs police to suppress peaceful protests
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x253574
Ridiculous FBI list: You might be a domestic terrorist if ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1790765
American Protesters Declared Enemy for Weapons Testing Purposes; Rules of Engagement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2132808#2139011
DoD Training Manual: Protests are "Low-Level Terrorism"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100227662
NSA, DEA fabricating evidence trails to imprison Americans using spying.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406605
ACLU: On revenge and the NSA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491532
On the Espionage Act charges against Edward Snowden Glenn Greenwald
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023066929
US Uses Espionage Act To Convict Manning Using Words Added In 1990: "with a computer"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023375845
Fed Court: Just changed interpretation of Espionage Act to cover leaks that are NOT Harmful To USA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023365713
Obama's abuse of the Espionage Act is modern-day McCarthyism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023413935
NY Times: White House Uses Espionage Act to Silence Employees, Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101616764
Obama Has Charged More Under Espionage Act Than All Other Presidents Combined
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023080388
A Nation of "Suspects"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5011487
http://www.truth-out.org/nation-suspects/1314810046
That magic word, "terrorism." The government's identification of those needing further scrutiny
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022730456#post13
Do You Like Online Privacy? You May Be a Terrorist
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002257966
"Arrogant complaining about airport security is one indicator Transportation Security Administration officers consider when looking for possible criminals and terrorists"
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/04/15/tsa.screeners.complain/
Top US counterterrorism official: drone critics are Al Qaeda enablers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002279862
Squinch
(50,934 posts)I never entered those Snowden arguments before. Now I'll say unequivocally, I am glad the guy did it.
Just the fact of him having done it proves that our intelligence community is a failure.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Their agenda is to make it so that nothing goes on without being recorded. Heard this on Democracy Now. The NSA doesn't exist for our good. It serves the TPTB.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and thank you for posting this.
They "have spent most of my 60 years on this planet proving to be utterly unworthy of my trust, and utterly unworthy of the trust of a democratic society. They lie...."
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)Also came here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I'm all out of bubble gum! 
K&R.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...agreeing with Pierce's point about the "shove." Focus is focus. I also agree that the other argument is "facile." Still, that doesn't mean one has to approve of Snowden's actions, especially those that have nothing to do with domestic surveillance.
By Charles P. Pierce
This, dear boy, is a very bad move.
<...>
As it happens, I actually believe the U.S. capacity for surveillance probably is greater than that of Russia. (USA! USA!). But this "Our special services are strictly controlled by law" yadda-yadda is such hilariously arrant bullshit that Snowden ought to be embarrassed for helping to catapult it into the dialogue. If you're trying to convince people that you are a disinterested seeker of truth who happens to be in Moscow because of a variety of very strange circumstances -- The new Vanity Fair has a long piece on how Snowden came to be in Russia in which Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks people do not come off well at all -- and that you are not operating too closely with the current Russian regime, having Vladimir Putin get publicly chummy with you, spy-to-spy, is really not the way to make your case.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/edward-snowden-putin-041714
Susan Page
NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."
<...>
Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?
"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."
Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.
"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."
- more -
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/
I stand with anyone who recognizes that one doesn't have defend Snowden playing Putin's tool to be on the "right side of history."
BLITZER: What about Snowden? Do you think that he committed a crime or he was simply a well-intentioned whistle-blower?
SANDERS: Well, I think what you have to look at is -- I think there is no question that he committed a crime, obviously. He violated his oath and he leaked information.
On the other hand, what you have to weigh that against is the fact that he has gone a very long way in educating the people of our country and the people of the world about the power of private agency in terms of their surveillance over people of this country, over foreign leaders, and what they are doing.
So, I think you got to weigh the two. My own belief is that I think, I would hope that the United States government could kind of negotiate some plea bargain with him, some form of clemency. I think it wouldn't be a good idea or fair to him to have to spend his entire remaining life abroad, not being able to come back to his country.
So I would hope that there's a price that he has to pay, but I hope it is not a long prison sentence or exile from his country.
BLITZER: You wouldn't give him clemency, though, and let him off scot-free?
SANDERS: No. BLITZER: All right, Senator, thanks very much for joining us.
<...>
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/06/sitroom.02.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024292659
Senator Blumenthal: prosecute Snowden, overhaul FISA courts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425884
Rep. John Lewis: "NO PRAISE FOR SNOWDEN-Reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908
From the beginning, it was clear that Snowden broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290). There was a point where even Snowden supporters accepted that he knew he broke the law. Snowden said it himself.
Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.
His actions since then have only made the situation worse.
Whistleblowers have been making that point, some in subtle ways.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023236549
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550
Of course, this is dimissed because they're also critical of the NSA. It's as if some think that you can't be against NSA overreach (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023002358) unless you support Snowden.
What's that line thrown out whenever Greenwald is criticized: Were you against Clarke when he went after Bush? Were you for Scooter Libby when he leaked Plame's identity?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The NSA exceeded its mandate. Who in the NSA would you prosecute for those crimes?
Prior to the Civil War, many northerners who believed slavery was wrong helped slaves escape from their masters in the South. Their actions violated laws. But they were morally right.
Snowden was serving the Constitution and violating laws that ultimately, if we remain a free country under our Constitution, will be deemed to be null and void because they violate the Constitution.
Past decisions of the Supreme Court can be distinguished on their facts. It all depends on who sits on the Court. Eventually the NSA and other intelligence agencies that gather information on US citizens without a warrant based on probable cause identifying the particular place, person, etc. to be searched will overstep to such an extent that members of Congress and the American people call out the NSA and intelligence services. Until that time, everyone will be very frightened and sheepish and say apologetic things, frightened things, lest they suffer the wrath of our intelligence agencies. Members of today's Congress are particularly vulnerable to the political expediency and perhaps political necessity of not angering the powers that be in the intelligence services.
But, time will change that.
I remember Lawrence v. Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
I remember Brown v. Board of Education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
I remember Griswold and Casey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
Then of course, there is Loving v. Virginia.
It takes time, but history points toward our successfully asserting our right to privacy in the face of the paranoia and unfounded suspicions of the NSA and other intelligence agencies that use our intelligence facility for wrongful purposes and to harass and watch citizens. It is inevitable that the definition of dangers to the US will be subjectively interpreted by the practitioners in the intelligence community. That is why ultimately it will be impossible to separate intelligence surveillance on a massive scale from political oppression.
Collecting the phone records of millions of Americans is wrong. It is an unnecessary, illegal intrusion on our privacy.
Snowden had a conscience and brought attention to the wrongs being committed.
Ignorance is bliss until suddenly you discover that your very thoughts are being monitored and you have no right to even think freely. After all, the Constitution safeguards your right to speak freely, but it says nothing about your right to think freely. That's the kind of logic the NSA is using to justify its surveillance of us.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"The NSA violated our constitutional rights to privacy. The NSA exceeded its mandate. Who in the NSA would you prosecute for those crimes?"
What does that have to do with my response? Is this an attempt at "gotcha"? If it is, it's a big FAIL. I'll let Snowden's lawyer respond:
Snowden supporters and advisers say Clinton's remarks were unrealistic and reflect several factual misunderstandings about his predicament.They say he could not have availed himself of whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee (he worked for contractor Booz Allen) and his claims would not have been viewed as exposing any impropriety because authorities in all three branches of government had blessed the NSA telephone program as legal. A federal judge not privy to the program before the leaks later ruled it unconstitutional, but that decision is on appeal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825
Despite the fact that the program is under heavy scrutiny for overreach, Snowden did not expose any illegal activity. So what "crimes" do you think need to be prosecuted?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You and a lot of other people seem very quick to condemn Snowden and think he should be imprisoned for defending the Constitution and violating his contract with his employer (a private employer, not the government). It has been established that the NSA exceeded its statutory mandate. Even that mandate is in my view unconstitutional. The NSA has admitted it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Plus the head of the NSA lied to Congress. That's perjury.
And I am telling you that the Supreme Court decisions and congressional acts that have given the green light on collecting metadata will be overruled eventually because the NSA will continue to overstep and will overstep even more flagrantly in the future. It's the nature of the game.
And Charles Pierce is right to criticize the past work of our intelligence agencies.
I know within my experience that they either missed the signs of what was going on in Eastern Europe with regard to Russian occupations beginning from the 1960s or they ignored them intentionally or they simply lied. I traveled and lived in Europe for much of the relevant time, and the CIA and other intelligence assessments were either absurdly missing what was going on or the government was lying about what was going on. One or the other. The surveillance was worse than you can imagine, and the people were far more frustrated with what was happening to them than our intelligence agencies admitted or knew (don't know which).
Our intelligence services have not served us well enough.
The Iraq War is one proof of that. Either the mistakes are intentional or they are due to incompetency. They may be due to political bias. That is why I would like to see someone do an analysis of potential political bias or perhaps a rather singular and ideologically or religious or class or some sort of dominating point of view on life and issues that makes it difficult for our intelligence services to analyze what is going on in the world objectively and usefully. I don't know what it is, but there is something skewed about the data that is collected and the conclusions that are reached. I do think they have done a pretty good job on estimating and identifying the nuclear threat. But they apparently missed the fact that Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets at one point. I just question their competence and their respect for the rule of law and our Constitution.
We need a very serious review of our intelligence agencies and community, and we need to let people working there know that they can be subject to the same rule of law as everyone else in the nation.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And I am telling you that the Supreme Court decisions and congressional acts that have given the green light on collecting metadata will be overruled eventually because the NSA will continue to overstep and will overstep even more flagrantly in the future. It's the nature of the game."
You're "telling" me that the program "will be overruled eventually" so you're asking me a question completely unrelated to my point and demanding to know who should be prosecuted for "crimes"?
The lengthy rant about what you know is rambling.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Just wait. There will be more.
The surveillance violates the Constitution. And I posted the link to the NYT article stating that there is agreement that the NSA exceeded the limits of its authorization under law. That is a violation of law.
What I write reflects my thoughts. I realize it is much easier to just post links and quotes, but I am not a machine. You find my long, rambling posts offensive. Others may find posts that merely copy from other sources and link, link, link to the mainstream media to be tiring. It's a matter of opinion, I suppose.
I am a real human being with a mind of my own. I've had a very unusual life and a wide variety of experiences. I am also broadly educated in a several fields (but not science), so I also know what I am talking about. Let he who has a mind understand me. Let he who has experience and education agree with me.
If you disagree with me, please tell me why you disagree with my opinion that the NSA surveillance program is unconstitutional. I am not interested in past Supreme Court decisions. As I pointed out, the Supreme Court changes its stance and rulings as society changes, as the issues are presented differently and as facts are distinguished. At 70, I've seen a lot of changes with regard to what is and is not legal, what is and is not illegal. More than younger people would believe.
The broad scope of the surveillance, the fact that the NSA has exceeded its legal boundaries and the current technological capacity of the NSA not imagined at the time of the past decisions of the Supreme Court mean to me that a good current case brought at the right time (when the repercussions of this surveillance become abundantly clear to the American people) will be won and will end the excessive surveillance.
A good lawyer will, in time, succeed in making the strong case against the arbitrary and excessive invasion of the privacy of Americans' communications and personal records and effects. It is a matter of distinguishing the facts in past cases with those that exist today.
I'm not speaking of the excesses in the surveillance of our allies' communications and their consulates, etc. Our allies will deal with those.
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/5/13/youre_being_watched_timeline_of_democracy
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/14/right_out_of_a_spy_movie
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/5/14/glenn_greenwald_us_corporate_media_is
I hope you will listen to the uncensored news provided in the interviews at those links.
There may be new, interesting, useful, thought-provoking information for you in those links.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024955152
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)was about torture.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The broad scope of the surveillance, the fact that the NSA has exceeded its legal boundaries and the current technological capacity of the NSA not imagined at the time of the past decisions of the Supreme Court mean to me that a good current case brought at the right time (when the repercussions of this surveillance become abundantly clear to the American people) will be won and will end the excessive surveillance.
A good lawyer will, in time, succeed in making the strong case against the arbitrary and excessive invasion of the privacy of Americans' communications and personal records and effects. It is a matter of distinguishing the facts in past cases with those that exist today.
(emphasis added)
...are you interested in facts? I mean, you're dismissing "past Supreme Court decisions" and speculating about a future decision, which you're using as a basis to demand people be prosecuted for "crimes."
After your question, I offered the opinion of Snowden's lawyers, who admit the program is "legal," and you dismissed that in favor of your speculation about a future decision.
"What I write reflects my thoughts. I realize it is much easier to just post links and quotes, but I am not a machine."
Do you think that everyone should appreciate rambling rants that are void of facts and full of speculation?
I think it's a lot "easier" to type rambling thoughts than to research the facts and make an argument based on them.
IMO, rambling thoughts are a waste of time. They're an opportunity for people to deflect, change the subject, spin and pat themselves on the back for being able to type a lot of words that don't often make sense.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I list lots of cases (and they are just a of the cases) that reflect the changes in the law on various issues since I was a child. I attended a segregated school at one time. I remember when Eisenhower sent troops into Little Rock to integrate the schools. I remember Martin Luther King's arrests and demonstrations and violations of law.
I've seen a lot. I don't need to link to my memories.
The Supreme Court decision in the Maryland case (1979 I think) on which the NSA relies to justify its massive collection of personal data and electronic communications data was based on entirely different technological capacity.
I realize that is viewed as the law at this time. But then Plessy v. Ferguson was the law for a long, long time. And there are even worse examples of judge-made law, Supreme-Court-made law that have changed as new issues arose and new understanding grew on the Court.
Some people are interested in original thought and original proposals, original solutions for problems. Some aren't.
Usually it is conservatives who rely on the status quo and are disinterested in original thought.
The mainstream media could have been quoted over and over to justify the Iraq War. Didn't make it right. Didn't mean that it didn't violate international law. Because it wasn't right, and it did violate international law.
I think for myself. I don't need to cite to irrelevant mainstream publications to support my ideas. For those who find my posts annoying, there is the ignore button. But they will miss a lot of fun. Like my prediction way before the new pope was picked that he would be from South America. Very few predicted that. I've watched the new for at least 61 years (longer actually) and I think. That's more than most journalists can say.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Some people are interested in original thought and original proposals, original solutions for problems. Some aren't.
Usually it is conservatives who rely on the status quo and are disinterested in original thought."
...you missed my point: Your speculating about a future decision, which you're using as a basis to demand people be prosecuted for "crimes," doesn't make sense.
"I think for myself. I don't need to cite to irrelevant mainstream publications to support my ideas. For those who find my posts annoying, there is the ignore button. But they will miss a lot of fun. Like my prediction way before the new pope was picked that he would be from South America. Very few predicted that. I've watched the new for at least 61 years (longer actually) and I think. That's more than most journalists can say."
You seem very defensive, and a little desperate to have a discussion about what you want to, attaching these rambling rants to unrelated comments.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Most DUers like to discuss and that inevitably involves theorizing. Some are better at it than others.
And some are very good at cutting and pasting. I would be utterly bored with it. Why? Because when one simply cuts and pastes, one limits the conversation to ideas that have already been aired. And what is the point in that?
You don't have to respond. It is a rhetorical question.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If he didnt he should be allowed to return home. But we know that's bullshite. Snowden embarrassed the authoritarians and their authoritarian followers are having a hissy-fit like the good little soldiers they are.
The authoritarians must strike back with force as they did with Chelsea Manning and OWS and all that dare to question their authority. We see their apologists attacking Snowden, Greenwald, OWS, Manning, Wikileaks, and all that might dare to fight for freedom and liberty.
Sadly I believe that the corporatists with their Citizen United will buy the presidency for H. Clinton-Sachs and Wall Street will dance in joy and the authoritarian followers here in DU will celebrate. The poverty rate will increase, the infant mortality rate will increase and the Wall Street profits will increase.
If you side with Wall Street, you aint a friend of the 99%.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You cant have it both ways. Either Snowden exposed illegal activity or he didnt."
What the hell are you talking about? He didn't. I said he didn't. His own lawyers said he didnt. So where the hell did you get the impression that I said otherwise?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)be welcomed back. Somehow I doubt you feel that way.
The NSA/CIA/FBI have had an unlimited budget since 9/11 and literally no oversight. To think they havent extended their surveillance to include everyone is naive. Your blind loyalty to the President is cute but I wish you had the same loyalty to our freedoms and liberties as specified by the Constitution.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Good grief. If you believe that he didnt expose any secrets, then you must agree he should be welcomed back. "
...you're upset because you don't understand the point? The legality of the program has nothing to do with the charges against Snowden, and "secrets" aren't synonymous with "illegal." Snowden stole classified information and revealed states secrets unrelated to domestic surveillance.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)beauitfully well said.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)good for you Will Pitt. The simple truth destroys their obfuscation. I agree with your post 100%. Knowledge keeps us free.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in our intelligence community, private contractors as well as public servants. I bet the statistics charted out would slope upwards to the rights. A bunch of paranoid people who are out of balance and think they know it all. They mean well, but oh, what mistakes they have made in my lifetime. Starting with Iran. What a pity that our intelligence services went askew on that one back in the time of Kermit Roosevelt.
Let's just stop the music and start all over again. We need to know what is going on in the world, but between and inept intelligence community and a corrupt news media, we know next to nothing. For a country with so much military power, that is a very dangerous thing.
Hekate
(90,616 posts)... our agreement on fundamental principles.
I have not yet made up my mind about Snowden -- or Greenwald.
However -- I'm in agreement with Charles Pierce's article, completely. I don't like where this country is going in this regard. I predicted much of this when the USA PATRIOT ACT was passed and when Patriot Act 2 was broached, didn't pass, and then parceled out into other bills. I'm not a happy camper that it is as bad as I thought it would be and probably considerably more.
It would be helpful -- at DU and in real life (or whatever passes for it these days) if we could at least see eye to eye on that.
dhill926
(16,333 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)he has the best laugh when i hear him on npr -- always a sign of a good egg.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Uncle Joe
(58,328 posts)Thanks for the thread, WilliamPitt.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Here's the thing. I'm not from the leftyist left of the party, but I still have considerable sympathy for those who complain about the CIA, the DIA, and the DCS.
However, you lose me when you start talking about "somebody else's kid paying the price" for the NSA.
What price did he pay exactly? Having his porn subscription revoked?
Your intent to shoehorn all the old complaints about war, both conventional and low intensity, in with espionage falls utterly flat. They are two entirely different things, and if you want to be remotely persuasive, you should consider actually attacking what you're arguing against.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)banned, because, unlike the conservatives, I believe in open discussions. How better to know your conservative enemies than let them blather on and on. It's the conservatives that support the oligarchy and the status quo. I bet you love H. Clinton-Sachs and her ties with Wall Street. You cant be for the people and for Wall Street.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I've been around since practically the beginning of the D.U., rhett. Just so you know.
(let's also just agree to disagree over your blanket condemnation of capitalism)
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And selling a book. And going on the talk show circuit. Face it, Powerpoint slides and Sharepoint documents do not a revolution make.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Those that hate whistle-blowers and protestors will be on the wrong side. Maybe those that choose Gen Clapper over Snowden think that the oligarchs will reward their loyality, but I doubt it. Either you favor freedom and liberty or you favor the authoritarian leadership that your oligarchs give you. Democratic principles do not include blind allegiance to the authoritarian oligarchs.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Leme
(1,092 posts)It had some of the things occurring in the lead-up to Snowden's actions.
-
Was Frontline fair? Fairly accurate?
-
Frontline seems to fit with what I knew and then some.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thank you for sharing this, Will.
Words of wisdom for democracy, the republic and law.