Edward Snowden made a calm, compelling case for clemency last night. He's a patriot.

[chimpymustgo]

He was searing in his sincerity. He went through his own revelations - from 9/11, the bullshit of the Iraq War, seeing how the government spies on US - on EVERYONE. The kangaroo spy courts. The lies.

They can get into your phones? Why should the government be able to do that?

Quite a contrast to the wild-eyed, (botoxed) threatening John Kerry yesterday. Man up, really?

Or the admitted liar ("least untruthful&quot James Clapper.

Edward Snowden made a case to come home. The government should hire him to work to put in controls. Do some community service. But guarantee his safety. And thank him.

[randome]

1. This is a rule of thumb I usually abide by.

When someone tells you they are a hero, they generally aren't.

Brian Williams called it correctly last night: Snowden confuses what technology is capable of doing with what the NSA actually does.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

54. Brian William, a TV guy, has more inside info than the guy who actually did the work for NSA?

That's surprising.

Or did someone give Brian a talking point?

[randome]

103. It's more like what Snowden did NOT provide: evidence.

He keeps talking but he never says what the NSA is doing that's illegal. Never. He simply took it upon his own to decide what needs to be made publicly available. That's not a whistleblower. That's an anarchist.
[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]

[merrily]

113. my post went to a dfifferent point. But, you think he owes someone proof of something? Why?

He learned some things. He thought the American public should know some of those things. So, he broke the law in order to get to the information to the American public the information he thought the public should have. What's to prove? Especially if he's never said the activities were illegal, why does anyone think he has to prove something? Even if he did say the activities were illegal, why would he have to prove it? He's not a prosecutor and he's not in court.

But my post went to Williams claiming that Snowden had confused capability to do something with actually having done that thing. I think it's interesting that Williams think he is in a position to say that.

[randome]

116. When you steal national security documents and run from the country...

...the bar is very high, IMO, to justify doing so. If he hasn't found anything illegal, then what was the point of all this? Why all the drama about his 'hard decisions'? It was a 'hard decision' to have planned and executed this theft over a period of months without having any inkling of what he might find?

Brian Williams simply echoed what many of us have pointed out here on DU: that just because technology has advanced to the point where we have the capability to do more intrusive surveillance doesn't mean -without some sort of evidence to the contrary, of course- that our intelligence agencies are doing that.

And since the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American citizens, the bar is even higher, IMO, to show us they are breaking that law. Otherwise, this is all just what Greenwald called it: a 'fireworks show'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

169. Did he disturb your comfortable denial bubble? You think the NSA is using their unlimited budget

and lack of oversight to do good. You pick on Snowden because he is an easy target. You wont challenge Gen Clapper because you want him to be nice to you, and protect you. You see eye to eye with the conservatives on the violations of our rights to privacy.
You are willing to give up your rights to privacy for a warm, nice feeling of security.

This war is between the 99% and the 1%. You seem to love the 1%. Go ahead and tell me it isnt true.

[liberalmike27]

221. Snowden Did Well

I thought Brian Williams did OK during the interview, and I didn't think Snowden called himself a hero, though he did say Patriot. And he's smart enough to understand that the word "Patriot" means different things to different people. In his case, it meant trying to defend the constitution, and rights people seem to be so willing to give up.

After reading a substantial number of posts on this whole thread, a couple of thoughts come to mind. One, I never see how well our center-right, to far right ideological spectrum in our media works, in getting Americans to fall into line, and follow each-other right over the cliff. When it comes to pushing us into various wars, or the surveillance required because we killed and bombed both innocents and actual potential terrorists alike, the media does a great job in not only getting right-wingers to step in line, and goose-step, but a lot of Democrats too.

Snowden made some great points--it is scary to think, as I type here, even if I correct it before I post, that some guy could be sitting up there, making judgements about what I might type, then take back, never even posting.

The title was probably the most biased thing in the Interview. "Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden." Might as well have just thrown the implied "demented" or "traitorous" into the title.

Maybe we should just not bomb and kill foreigners all over the globe generating enemies rather than angering a people so much they're willing to kill themselves, just to demonstrate how THEY feel when we bomb and kill their people with our Air Force. Of course no right-thinking pundit, who wants to keep their job in the American media, is going to say "See how you feel now? That is what they feel like, when we drop a missile in the middle of their weddings, or social events, killing anyone within a radius, and knowing we're going to be doing that."

If we stop jumping into every war, and serving as the voluntary PoPo for the world, then we'll not need to spend money to spy on EVERYONE, to collect all data. And anyone who think this is intended as ONLY a method of stopping terrorism, is engaging in foolish behavior. This is a sweeping change in our legal system, making previously unconstitutional techniques, now legal. The NSA regularly hands data they collect, to other branches of government. Much like the militarization of our police forces, and their amped up aggression of the last decade, this is just another cudgel to resist the eventual chaos we are so obviously headed toward.

The rich have created this world, where wealth is poorly distributed, where the poor are neglected, their jobs shipped away. Instead of FDR solutions, higher taxes on inheritances and income and putting them into the same tax system everyone else is in, they intend to increase prisons, make more things criminal, and use every resource in all of that collected data, and privatize the prisons, to make money off the misery they are creating, as well.

It's a bad road we're heading down. I know Americans aren't too swift at looking ahead in the game. But we're in an increasingly losing position, and agreeing to surveillance, is just another bad move. Perhaps you can do nothing else--but at least fight against it be not agreeing to this constitutional violation. Save money on the front and back ends. Let's not war, and we won't have to spy.

[randome]

222. I have no idea what the 1% versus the 99% has to do with this.

Every country on the planet criminalizes what Snowden did. He needs to face the consequences for his crimes. It really is that simple absent evidence to support his crazy claims.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

226. You polled "every country on the planet"? The authoritarian leaders all hate Snowden.

He is trying to help the 99% and yet some choose to side with the 1%. Tell me that you fully trust the NSA/CIA? Tell me that you dont think they'd step over the line if they get half a chance. Tell me that the Patriot doesnt give them carte blanch authority to do whatever they want on the pretext they are "making us safer".

The choice is fighting for our freedoms and liberties (and our wealth) or going along with the oligarchs. Of course the easy way is to accept the cool aid and hope they will like you.

[randome]

227. I don't trust the NSA. I never said I did.

I also don't trust a guy who lied on his resume, lied to his girlfriend, lied about his motives for working at the NSA and now has lied about trying to work through the system and giving up.

Snowden is only trying to help Snowden. It's becoming more evident daily that he was an isolated loner who dreamed of being a superhero.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

230. Now we are getting down to it. You dont like Snowden for a number of reasons.

Doesnt matter. You dont trust him and you dont have to. I am not trusting him. Trusting him has absolutely nothing to do with his revelations. It's not up to you or me to decide if his revelations are true or not. Why do we have a group here in politically liberal DU that is totally obsessed with how Snowden leads his life? Whether he is a liar or not, whether he is a Libertarian or not, whether he is an atheist or not, has nothing whatsoever to do with the very important issue of how far over the line the NSA/CIA have stepped. There is a good chance that they run the country. But you want us to worry about Snowden. Looks to me like heavy denial.
"Dont tell me that we have lost our Democracy because I cant deal with it. Hey! Look over there at Snowden, he lied to his girlfriend and stuff like that."

[War Horse]

255. I'm sorry to barge in on the conversation, but

this Left/Libertarian convergence is much more dangerous than anything the NSA could come up with, the way I see it.

No ulterior motives or inability to deal with anything on my part. It's just the way I see it.



Come to think of it... If I were of the Alex Jones mindset I might suggest that the PTB have set it up to be just that... A left/Libertarian convergence

[merrily]

191. IOW, he owes no one any proof or even any explanation.

When you steal national security documents and run from the country......the bar is very high, IMO, to justify doing so

Maybe, if you are in a court of law. He isn't. And can we please stop pretending that "run from the country" actually has something to do with it? As if everything would have been fine if he did exactly the same thing, but stayed somewhere in the USA. Please.

When you talk things like proof and evidence, you are talking law.

And you know what they say about opinions.

Brian Williams simply echoed what many of us have pointed out here on DU: that just because technology has advanced to the point where we have the capability to do more intrusive surveillance doesn't mean -without some sort of evidence to the contrary, of course- that our intelligence agencies are doing that.

Yes, we do. The government has even admitted that some employees used the system to do things like check on their wives (or ex wives.) Why are they gathering and storing the info if they never intended to use it? Governments are not known for restraint, especially when they think they are operating in secret. Why do you think the people insisted on the Fourth Amendment to begin with?

And that is not what Brian Williams "simply" did. He said Snowden was confused about the subject. Sounds like Williams was either repeating a talking point or implying that he (Williams) knows better than the man who actually was doing the NSA work.

And since the NSA is forbidden by law from spying on American citizens, the bar is even higher, IMO, to show us they are breaking that law.

Overclassification is also forbidden by law. And the NSA is (a) a government agency; and (b) in no danger whatever of criminal prosecution. And Snowden is not a prosecutor. He, however, is in danger of criminal prosecution. So, if there is any burden of proof at all involved here, it's not on Snowden. With the obvious exception of the imagination of certain DU posters, of course.

Where on earth do you get that accusing a government agency of breaking the law puts some amorphorous burden of proof that you can't even identify on an accused? It's totally protected speech, period.

[randome]

220. Sure, anyone can shoot off their mouth. I'll give Snowden that.

But he stole national security documents and is trying to leverage his way back to America without having to suffer the consequences.

The man is lost. He will stay in Russia for the rest of his life or he will return to America to be imprisoned. That's reality.

No one is saying that DU is a court or that Snowden needs to prove anything to us. But he quite clearly wants us to believe every crazy thing he says so...yeah, he needs to provide some evidence of his outrageous claims if that's what he wants.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

245. IOW, Snowden has no obligation to prove anything to anyone.

No one is saying that DU is a court or that Snowden needs to prove anything to us

.

Huh? That's exactly what you've been posting. Not only that he has to prove something, but that he has a high bar. Not that DU is a court, but that Snowden has to prove something. And you said it again in Reply 220.

[JDPriestly]

174. He doesn't present the evidence because he did not take it with him to Russia.

[Cryptoad]

199. Seems that he doesnt have any evidence to take anywhere....nt

[uponit7771]

122. +1

[arthritisR_US]

127. You make good points but there is no way to know what the

NSA is doing because of the shroud of secrecy and using the courts to maintain the secrecy. They very well could be doing that which they are very capable of doing and the public would have no way of knowing.

[randome]

135. Fair point.

But Congress -at least in theory- oversees it all. That's 535 politicians, many of whom would like nothing better than to find something on which to nail their opponents.

Surely not all 535 are being blackmailed or live in fear or are simply too timid to speak up.

And the FISA court is not one person making decisions, either. One of the better ideas to have come out of this brouhaha is the concept of having an adversarial official make the case for not targeting an individual or group.

But Snowden's brand of anarchy is not for me. That wasn't even his idea. All he did was steal and run.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[ohheckyeah]

173. at least in theory

being the key words.

At least Snowden was committed to something - blowing the whistle on what he found to be improprieties committed against the American people.

[randome]

223. If he found improprieties, why didn't he get evidence of it?

Everything that's been published so far -with the exception of the metadata phone records- has been about the NSA spying on non-Americans. That's their job.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[ohheckyeah]

242. I think the phone records metadata

by itself is plenty and major.

[sabrina 1]

225. Lol, the telecoms have admitted what they are doing for the Govt. Now that they have been exposed

AGAIN, they are promising to stop. No Corporate Media puppet, no matter what s/he thinks or even knows, can dare to do or say anything other than what has been okayed from their Corporate media bosses. See what happens to those who do.

The reason the Corporate Media is dying is because no one believes a word they have to say. Williams wants to keep his job and he cannot do that without following his orders.

[randome]

229. They have been 'exposed' since 2006 when we knew metadata storage was part of the NSA.

So every media organization in the world is afraid of corporations, huh? Does that include the New York Times? The Guardian? Der Spiegel? Washington Post? They have all published articles about Snowden.

All Snowden needs is evidence of his claims. He has none.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[ReverendDeuce]

2. But... but... Kerry said we should not like him! Obama did too! n/t

n/t

[DonViejo]

26. Have a link to OP's or news articles directly quoting

Kerry or Obama saying "we should not like" Snowden? If so, would you post them please? Thanks in advance.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Kerry said "he is a traitor"

That comment drew a sharp response from U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who spoke with the network earlier Wednesday.

"Patriots don't go to Russia. They don't seek asylum in Cuba. They don't seek asylum in Venezuela. They fight their cause here," Kerry told NBC. "Edward Snowden is a coward. He is a traitor. And he has betrayed his country. And if he wants to come home tomorrow to face the music, he can do so."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/28/us/edward-snowden-interview/

There's no point in quibbling about that - when a Secretary of State labels someone a traitor, "should not like" would be a euphemism for it.

[DonViejo]

114. Thanks for the link, much appreciated! eom

[zeemike]

63. So they called him a traitor.

But that don't mean we should not like him?
Where have we heard that before?...oh right, just because we use the N word don't mean we don't like them...because we did not say the words.

[DonViejo]

115. Who are you addressing with this comment? eom

[zeemike]

130. Your post #26 eom

[DonViejo]

136. I asked a simple question...

what are you getting twisted about? The comment was made that Kerry and Obama said we should not like Snowden. I had not seen those exact words being quoted anywhere, I asked for a link so I could read the article. I'm not allowed to ask?

[zeemike]

159. I know you were just asking the question

And I was just giving you my answer.

[arthritisR_US]

137. They called Thomas Drake a traitor too, which he wasn't. nt

[treestar]

66. Kerry said nothing like that.

This is not high school.

[ProSense]

3. This is the height of entertainment

"He was searing in his sincerity."

Soaring hyperbolic rhetoric. LOL!

[chimpymustgo]

4. Snowden really helped his case. The interview is changing minds too - for people willing to think.

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm glad he did the interview. Brian Williams was tough but fair. And Snowden weighed every pitch - then hit each one out of the park.

Some deal to bring him home ought to be in the works.

[malaise]

5. Brian Williams is not stupid

He wants to be able to say he was on the right side of history.

[ProSense]

12. He and the other analysts tore Snowden apart after the interview. n/t

[malaise]

16. Look he's a tool, a classic opportunist

When the right time comes, he won't dig up the post-interview comments, just the fact that he (the classic narcissist) interviewed Snowden to get the truth.
Brian Williams is the definition of a popinjay.

[ProSense]

47. Yet he got the interview. Greenwald

"When the right time comes, he won't dig up the post-interview comments, just the fact that he (the classic narcissist) interviewed Snowden to get the truth.
Brian Williams is the definition of a popinjay. "

...sure knows how to pick them.

Glenn Greenwald Once Called Brian Williams ‘NBC’s Top Hagiographer’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025015400

[merrily]

59. Yes, he got the interview. Is that supposed to prove something?

Obviously, Snowden, for whatever reason, wanted to be heard and there are three major evening news anchors. I'd probably give it to Williams, too, just because I like his sense of humor. But that doesn't prove anything about Williams, other than he is one of the three.

[merrily]

64. Totally predictable. Media is notoriously pro-establishment--and chicken.

And usually more than a little rightist.

[arthritisR_US]

132. I didn't see that. Do you know if it was posted online? nt

[chimpymustgo]

55. You are so right. A whole bunch of people are going to look stupid - and traitorous.

[ProSense]

6. Really?

"Snowden really helped his case. The interview is changing minds too - for people willing to think."

During the interview, he sounded like an idiot and most of his claims were absurd. I mean, the fool admitted, in his own words, that he took damaging information and distributed it and the only thing he has as a defense is that the recipients promised not to reveal the information.

9) Snowden didn’t deny turning over secrets that would be damaging or harmful. He only said journalists have a deal with him not to do it. Just a reminder: we really have no idea how many reporters or organizations have copies of the documents or the total number of documents (it’s a Greenwald/Snowden secret), but we do know that Snowden documents have been reported by so many publications that the question arises: who doesn’t have Snowden documents?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025017514

"Some deal to bring him home ought to be in the works."

Will it involve the U.S. justice system?

[JDPriestly]

177. If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger.

That trick goes all the way back to Greece.

Snowden detractors know very well they cannot argue against him on the merits. So they argue against him ad hominem. He's a bad guy.

We should be talking about whether the FISA courts should exist. Based on the orders I have read, they should not. We need to remodel the FISA courts so that innocent individuals can question FISA orders permitting the surveillance of the individuals' communications. It should not be some anonymous, government-appointed lawyer. The government should not only get a warrant based on probable cause for every item, place, person or thing it wishes to place under surveillance. Further because of the excesses that have taken place, the FISA court should issue orders that require the warrant is revealed to the individual under surveillance if and when the claim of probable cause has been proved to be bogus.

Regardless of anything that Snowden has done or said, there is neither a defense nor an excuse for the NSA spying on such a massive scale. Nixon left office for spying on a few people but the extent of his surveillance was nothing compared to what the NSA is doing.

As for Snowden, the US should do the pragmatic thing. We should make a deal with Snowden like the deal we made with the banks. A deal that protects our most important interests -- our survival.

We kept the banks above water and basically gave them amnesty even though they nearly and maybe actually did bring down the world economy.

If we want to do what is best for the US, we will strike a similar deal with Snowden. It's the pragmatic, smart thing to do.

Think it through without emotion. Snowden is a smart guy. In his area of expertise, he is clearly brilliant.

What's more he has knowledge and ability that could be very dangerous to us if used against our interests. He knows how our intelligence and surveillance systems work. In addition, his personal intelligence and specific knowledge potentially make him dangerous to us.

(Compare him to the banks. They know where the derivatives are and what the magic formulas are the prevent the derivatives from killing our economy. There knowledge could pose a threat to us and the world economy. We have basically granted them amnesty and even bailed them out financially letting them grab people's homes and throw people into bankruptcy. They posed at least as great a danger to the US as Snowden if not a greater danger. Yet the heads of the banks are for the most part enjoying their wealth and freedom. Very, very few landed in prison.)

Snowden has stated that he does not have access to the many documents he carried away from the NSA and took to Hong Kong. Let's say we don't believe him. That makes him all the more dangerous. He could give his documents to Russia. We should prevent that by giving him amnesty and getting him to come home or to a safe third country. The likelihood is that he is telling the truth and that he doesn't have the documents. That means that Russia does not have them either.

But we should still try to get him out of Russia and into a country that is allied with us because even without the documents, what Snowden does have, as I mentioned above, is knowledge of how our intelligence system and in particular how our computer system works. We don't want the Russians to have that. The best way to prevent them from getting that is to offer Snowden immunity and bring him home. We could make a deal with him that would require him to be quiet and not use computers for a while, a sort of house arrest or probation deal. He should not go to prison. It would not be smart on our part to insist on imprisoning him. He would never accept such a deal, and we would make him angry. Don't anger someone who knows your most embarrassing secrets. That's a lesson every teenager has to learn.

It is in our interest to bring Snowden out of Russia maybe even home along with his excellent hacking skills and his knowledge of our intelligence system. It is in our interest to prevent Snowden from hating the US.

Sorry this isn't well written but it is very late.

The US should do the smart thing, the pragmatic thing and offer Snowden a deal that will give him a way back to the US and out of Russia provided he lives in peace and does not make speeches or use computers.

If I were Snowden, I would not want to come back here yet. There is far too much hostility here.

I will admit that I am grateful that Snowden revealed to us just how corrupt our country really is. The NSA is worse than Nixon's surveillance and break-in fantasies every were.

But the person who took away his passport should be fired. What is done is done. At this time the US should forget its pride and try to prevent Snowden from offering his skill and intelligence to some other country.

In addition, we need to make sure that intelligence agents and security agents who blow the whistle are protected. And the congressional committees that oversee our intelligence community need to get on the ball. Feinstein should not be on the Senate Intelligence Committee. She is completely unsuited for that kind of work. It's understandable. She suffered terrible trauma in San Francisco before going to the Senate. But she should not be on that committee. Congress needs to take care of the issue of over-reaching by the NSA and make sure that whistleblowers in the intelligence community are not abandoned in the cold or harassed or imprisoned or even threatened with imprisonment.

Mold grows in dark, secret places behind the walls. We need to tear down the walls and get rid of the mold before it kills our Constitution.

And if we truly believe that Snowden poses a threat in Russia, we need to help him get out of there to a safe haven. We should not kill him because if we do, the rest of the world will see us as morally suspect. Sure, the corrupt leaders in the world would love to see Snowden dead and gone. But the people of the world would see the US as an untrustworthy and morally corrupt nation.

[MADem]

182. It's changing minds, all right.

http://www.zdnet.com/edward-snowden-from-zero-to-exiled-zero-in-three-months-7000029885/
Edward Snowden: From zero to exiled zero in three months

He's not going to get clemency and the only deal he'll get is by way of Club Fed.

How much time depends on how much damage, and only a polygraph knows for sure.

[Tarheel_Dem]

239. They are just pulling crap from every orifice today. I'd like to see proof of "changing minds".

The interview, itself, lost in the ratings to reruns of CSI. So if only the true believers were watching, how many minds got changed?

Edward Snowden-Brian Williams Interview Beaten by CBS Rerun

Edward Snowden? Living in Russia, world’s most wanted leaker of government secrets, Snowden, you’d think, would be a huge “get” for any network anchor. Last night Brian Williams got the scoop and presented an interview with Snowden called “Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden” on NBC.

Big ratings? They were ok. The total viewer number was 5.91 and the key demo was 1.3. But “Inside” didn’t win its time slot. It was beaten by a rerun of “CSI” on CBS. “CSI” had a larger total audience– 6.14 million viewers. Of course, the “CSI” viewers were slightly older, as the rerun scored a 1.1 in the key demo.

How frustrating for Williams et al that not a lot of people cared about finally seeing and hearing Snowden. It didn’t help that NBC didn’t care very much either. The lead in was a two rerun of “Last Comic Standing.” They had this big news scoop, and didn’t bother to just put it on at 8pm and say Here, look what we’ve got. Maybe that’s why the Snowden interview was also beaten for the night by CBS’s rerun of “Criminal Minds.”

Fiction is better than fact!

http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/05/29/tv-edward-snowden-brian-williams-interview-beaten-by-cbs-rerun

[MADem]

240. COMCAST/XFINITY are showcasing it in their ON DEMAND menu.

I watched it again, in case I missed anything.

I noticed a few things that escaped me, before. He did a lot of "Down and Away" with the eyes. He'd look away while answering a question, then look at BW to try and gauge his reaction. He also did a bit of rapid blinking when he got questions with a bit of punch. His posture looked rehearsed--of course, that could be because they always put those guys in close proximity in chairs facing one another. He didn't look easy, but he did look like he was trying HARD to look easy.

A few of his comments were very off-putting to me. "I was AT FORT MEADE!!!!" he said (re: Nahn Wun Wun). Yeah, he was at Ft. Meade housing area, in some kid's house, playing video games. He wasn't wandering the halls of NSA. He was a teenager at the time. "I WAS A SPY!!" was another one that seemed to be an overstatement. He had a "different name?" Really? I'd love to know what it was. And being assigned as an "attache" at an embassy--which he was--is not operating "covertly." Everyone and their fucking mother, save the principal, his immediate staffers, and the administrative personnel, is an "attache." That title has TWO purposes--the first purpose is to give the worker diplomatic immunity. The second purpose is so you're listed in the roster as an "attache" and not "Hey Russians, Say, Chinese, this is the guy with ACCESS TO THE COMPUTERS--work on compromising HIM First!!!!"

The more I listened to him (and all this is just my opinion, so anyone else poking their nose in my conversation with TD, you don't like opinion? Stop reading), the more I thought he was a very well spoken, smart-in-one-area-only, full of himself, DOLT. A savant when it came to computers, a completely clueless jerk at seeing how he came across to others. I am not at ALL surprised that he almost came to blows with his supervisors in Switzerland. I'm not surprised they fired his ass. He has that smarmy/insufferable vibe. "You're stupid, let me explain this to you simply, because you're too dumb to get it," -- he tried to pull that with BW with the phone, but that little exchange didn't quite come off the way he hoped, I don't think.

And this guy wanted SES pay? I swear, that, I think, is what really drove him to swipe all that crap and run--because he felt they didn't appreciate what he regarded as his absolute genius. GS-13 money for a high school dropout with a bogus clearance wasn't "good enough" for him.

The more he talked, the dumber he came across. He sounded like a guy who had no clue how to break into the Upper Echelon club, the sort that would insult the boss instead of flatter them, and then not understand why he didn't get one of the coveted 'up and comer' invitations to his annual garden party. He wanted to be a PLAYAH, a Big Boss, not an intermediate worker bee taking direction from some steak-and-martini-lunch guy who wasn't as smart as he was when it came to the computers (but maybe had a better grasp on the workings of human nature?).

My read-out after two passes at the show was RESENTMENT, followed by REGRET. I think if he had it to do over again, he'd rewind the script and take surfing lessons to get the frustrations out. He'd never have called GG or LP or anyone. He wouldn't have stolen a thing.

But hey, too late. Helluva lesson to learn.

[Tarheel_Dem]

243. Thanks for that synopsis. I can't bear to watch him or GG, so I appreciate it. I think Bill Maher

would agree with this: "The more he talked, the dumber he came across.", as he has said the same thing more than once. Something to the effect of "everytime he opens his mouth, he says something fucking stupid." I only hate that tonight's show will be a rerun.

I knew, as soon as I read that in his asylum bid he referred to Putin as some staunch defender of human rights, that something was really wrong with the guy, or his entire life has absolutely no basis in reality.

[grasswire]

249. how can you judge him if you won't even...

....listen to what he has to say? You are totally discounted as a critic now.

[Squinch]

253. You didn't watch it, yet you are passing judgment on his performance?

Speaking of ...

[Tarheel_Dem]

256. "His performance"? Is that what it was? My mind was already made up.

Nothing he can say or do, from this point on, to change that.

[Squinch]

257. How very Republican.

[Tarheel_Dem]

258. I think you may have confused me with GG & Snowey, the Repub...er, I mean Libertarians.

[Squinch]

259. Well, no. I am basing my opinion on your words in this thread. So not mistaking you for anyone.

I'd put a big photo of you inset with, maybe, the someone putting their fingers in their ears and saying, "Lalalala" here, but I don't have one. Plus, I'm not sure what your purpose of putting Snowden in an inset with Putin is. Surely you can't be equating them, because that would be idiotic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

261. How 'bout this one?

[Tarheel_Dem]

238. "The interview is changing minds too - for people willing to think". Is this just a hunch, or is...

there some concrete scientific method by which you've come to this conclusion?

[Tarheel_Dem]

262. Nope. Not according to this "scientific" poll. MUST! TRY! HARDER!

More Americans Oppose Edward Snowden's Actions Than Support Them

By Mark Murray

More Americans oppose Edward Snowden’s decision to flee the U.S. with thousands of stolen documents and reveal confidential details about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs than those who support his actions, according to a new NBC News poll.

The findings come in the wake of “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams’ wide-ranging, exclusive interview with Snowden, which aired on NBC primetime last Wednesday. Yet, the nation’s opinion of the former government contractor turned world’s most wanted man changes significantly by age.

<...>

The poll shows a striking difference of opinion in Snowden by age. Those ages 18 to 34 tend support Snowden’s actions, by 32 percent to 20 percent, and view him a favorable light, compared with all other age groups who don’t.

<...>

The NBC poll finds Americans -- by a 2-to-1 margin – view Snowden in a negative light: 27 percent of voters have an unfavorable opinion of him, while 13 percent have a positive one.

http://www.nbcnews.com/#/news/us-news/more-americans-oppose-edward-snowdens-actions-support-them-n119476

[treestar]

65. People committed themselves to him the day his name came out

The more that is revealed about him, the more absurdly they double down in the their worship and admiration. You'd think he saved kids from a burning building.

[SidDithers]

101. Nailed it...

Sid

[former9thward]

163. And Authoritarians hated him the day his name came out.

It just their talking points changed daily. Loner, pole-dancing girlfriend, libertarian, boxes in the garage, stole nothing of importance, biggest theft in history,etc., etc.

[treestar]

164. We aren't authoritarians for thinking he should face what he did

I don't care about his boxes or girlfriends.

[JDPriestly]

180. He would argue, and I would agree, that he acted to protect the Constitution.

The jury pool has been prejudiced. The many fools (mostly not lawyers) who voiced their outrage at Snowden have sullied the jury pool beyond hope. He cannot get a fair trial. A trial would be a travesty.

Kerry is a lawyer and should have known better. Same for Obama. Even when the facts are obvious, you do not try and convict a person in press announcements. Not if you are a responsible authority.

And Kerry, Obama and all the politicians who condemn Snowden have not thought about the questionable constitutionality of the NSA's surveillance of Americans. They have acted as judge and jury. You would not like it if they did that to you because they thought something you did was illegal. A person has a right, under our Constitution to a fair trial. Again, what is most important? Revenge or our Constitution?

It takes discipline, self-discipline to respect human rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Apparently our leaders do not have the caution and self-discipline they need to have in this respect.

I can understand the frustration of our government in the face of Snowden's revelations about foreign surveillance. But they should have restrained the NSA from its excessive domestic surveillance. If law enforcement needs to get a warrant and place websites under surveillance, they should do it. Same for telephone and other electronic records. But it should be done as the Constitution requires on a case by case, person by person determination of probable cause.

[MADem]

241. No, the jury pool has NOT been prejudiced. Most people didn't watch Snowden OR Kerry on TV.

They were watching Last Comic Standing or CSI.

[wildbilln864]

170. NAILED It! n/t

[George II]

120. If I was in deep trouble, realized that I didn't want to live in Russia any longer, but...

....couldn't return to my home country without being prosecuted, I guess I'd try to get out of it by using "searing sincerity"!

[arthritisR_US]

140. That's a good point. nt

[JDPriestly]

181. As an American, I think that upholding the Constitution is more impotant than

upholding a secretive and overreaching surveillance system.

[Logical]

263. You really hate these posts! Especially the recs! LOL! Nt

[Capt. Obvious]

7. Rapid response team 3.. 2..

[KittyWampus]

9. LOL! Anyone who responds negatively is part of a conspiracy.

Oy.

[Capt. Obvious]

10. LOL YOUR WORDS NOT MINE

LOL LOL LOL

SPAM THE BOARD

LOL LOL LOL

[randome]

11. Only someone who is part of the conspiracy would dismiss the conspiracy!

Psst: The hamper is open. Repeat: the hamper is open.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Generic Other]

19. Na na na! I can't hear you!!

“...the human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.” Sir Francis Bacon 1620

Bacon describes the anti-Snowdenites quite accurately, don't ya think?

[randome]

34. Not me. I couldn't care less if the NSA continues to exist or not.

If the evidence shows they have routinely violated the law, so be it. But so far all we have from Snowden is his vague claims of what they might do. Brian Williams called it last night: Snowden confuses what technology is capable of doing with what the NSA actually does.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Generic Other]

40. I was agreeing with you

I need to work on my communication skills.

on edit: or maybe not!! I side with Snowden.

[randome]

46. Or I need to work on my interpretive skills.

Either way, it's all good info!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Historic NY]

57. Thats the point he hasn't shown what they did do...

but now he has reveal to all the world to see that actual capabilities

[merrily]

71. We know know that massive amounts of data have been collected and stored, that it can be accessed at

will, whenever the government chooses to do so. And, I think the government itself revealed that it has been accessed for personal reasons, like snooping on ex wives. Isn't that enough?

As for what he revealed and to whom, I don't think any of us have any way of knowing that. Please see Reply 62.

[randome]

118. I have the capability to eavesdrop outside your door. Any evidence I am doing that?

Sure, technology is awesome. Why do Snowden and Greenwald want us to be afraid of it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

183. If you eavesdropped outside someone's door, that person would have the capacity to call the

police and then go to court and obtain a restraining order to prevent you from hanging out around their door. Your offense would be called harassment, maybe even stalking.

You would probably go to jail if you continued to eavesdrop outside another person's door. Why? Because people in the US have a right to privacy. You might have the physical capacity to eavesdrop outside someone's door, but you do not have the legal right to do it.

[treestar]

68. No, he describes the Snowdenites

Whatever Eddie does, they refuse to deal with it.

They call legal things illegal.

They insist the big bad US government forced him to go to Russia. Not his choice at all.

They insist he is above the law, and should have to go to court like anyone else would.

Worship of the kind we BOGGERs couldn't even dream up.

[Generic Other]

212. Sometimes it is not about Obama

Believe it or not, there are concepts and actions larger than even his iconographic stature. I am writing about Snowden, not Obama's hagiography. I leave that to you and the rest of the BOGGERs.

I have not approved of most of the actions of the US government for decades. But yeah, there's the talking point. I am a traitor like Snowden. Or maybe Trotsky. Who knows anymore. All I know is I have not had to turn myself inside out like a pretzel to find a position I could assume that didn't go against my actual beliefs for a long time.

Some people act like being ethical, refusing to support anti-American policies, exposing corruption and ruthless power grabs is a crime. I think it is our duty as Americans.

Obama is a lame duck president. Has been for most of his term. Get used to it. Or do you plan to push for a Constitutional amendment to keep him in office another four years?

[Mojorabbit]

119. Yes! and I see today they have a new talking point as well! nt

[Generic Other]

211. And where did I get my talking point?

Oh yeah. Because I happen to believe the US government is out of control? That I barely believe that Democrats who I vote for are doing any more to stop this than the fascists on the other side? I guess I get up every day, face toward Mecca, Moscow and Texas to get my "talking points." Good god!!

[Mojorabbit]

232. Um I was agreeing with you

There is a small faction here that show up in tandem with identical anti snowden talking points every time he is in the news. It is uncanny.

[Generic Other]

244. Thank you for clarifying

Sometimes I get confused about who thinks I am an ignorant person "blabbering" and who actually is on my side.

The talking point thing is weird. Like they get together and swarm threads they deem a danger to lockstep unity.

[treestar]

107. What was the code name for Putin again?

The bear is out. Repeat, the bear is out.

[Jamaal510]

167. "Shirtless Bear Wrassler". nt

[treestar]

67. It's like they really resent disagreement on this

and would prefer lock step.

There's a passive aggressive thread by Willy T doing nothing but talk about other posters on another thread. It's like high school.

[merrily]

79. Is it different from your posts 67 and 68?

BTW, you must read a different set of posts than I do.

[treestar]

82. Yes. I didn't start an OP to talk about posters in a different OP.

Or make comments like "Kerry said we have to hate him now."

Really the devotion to Eddie is a bit disturbing. No matter what he does, he's a hero. Even Putin gets support on account of him, from alleged Americans.

[merrily]

92. So, the difference between grade school-like posts and other kinds is geography, not content?

I'll try to remember that.

I have no devotion to Snowden or Greenwald, though I don't think they are the same.

Snowden broke the law. Greenwald did not. If this were the Pentagon Papers case, Snowden would analogous to Ellsberg while Greenwald is analogous (in role, not in size or prestige) to the New York Times However the times are very different. No Gravel is reading Snowden's documents into the Congressional record.

In any case, and whatever their motives may have been, I am grateful that I have the information, regardless of how it got to me. And I think the focus on them by both their admirers and their critics only deflects from the real issues, which are the Constitutional ones, not whether they're evil or egomaniacs or whatever. I could care less what their personalities are.

[JDPriestly]

184. Could you please explain what remains of the Fourth Amendment once the NSA has the authority

to grab all your electronic communications and fly drones and helicopters over your house? What is left?

[Generic Other]

213. A worthless piece of paper

they display in a museum. A dead document. Our Constitution. Our laws. What set us above others.

[JDPriestly]

234. It's so sad.

[backscatter712]

48. It always takes a bit of time before they get the email with the latest talking points...

But yeah, before long, we'll see an outbreak of Authoritarian Personality Disorder.

[Bobbie Jo]

69. Vapid response team in 3..2..

Never mind.

They're ahead of schedule.

[Capt. Obvious]

78. YAWN

[Bobbie Jo]

91. Stay vigilant

Shit just doesn't stir itself.

[themaguffin]

142. So that's it then, You decide and we must agree? I didn't know I was in Freeperland...

[Generic Other]

214. We're all living in Freeperland!

Didn't you get your papers, citizen?

[Progressive dog]

8. Why would he need clemency?

He just needs to come home and convince a jury that he broke no laws because NSA bad.

[ProSense]

31. The excuses are all over the place.

"He just needs to come home and convince a jury that he broke no laws because NSA bad."

If he revealed massive illegal activity, he would have been able to get whistleblower protection. He admits to stealing information in an interview that's being characterized as a plea for "clemency."

Snowden fans love this, but despise Kerry for suggestin that he come back to the U.S. and deal with the justice system.

LOL!

[on point]

33. He needs presidential pardon to absolve him of all possible charges

In advance of him coming home ala Nixon who thus escaped any prosecution. Snowden should not see a day of court or jail

[Progressive dog]

41. If Snowden needs a pardon, he must be guilty

Come home Eddie, if you're such a patriot, you should be ecstatic for the chance to have a jury of your peers rule on your guilt or innocence.

[on point]

56. No, one is never guilty until found in court of law. Presumption of innocense

This would just mean he would never need to go down the road of showing that he honored the constitution over the illegalities of corrupt government entities

[treestar]

73. A pardon means you are guilty

If you are not guilty, don't ask for a pardon. Ask for an acquittal.

[merrily]

105. No. The presumption of innocence means that the prosecution has to prove a case in the first place,

as opposed to a kangaroo court or a simple drone execution. Then Snowden and/or his attorney get to put on a defense. And then each side gets at least one more pass. Then a judge or jury decides what in all that mess is the truth.

However, in this case, I don't there's any secret or attempted secret about the fact that Snowden took papers he was not supposed to take and shared info he was not supposed to share.

[JDPriestly]

186. He doesn't need a pardon. He needs a deal. Let his lawyers figure it out.

The jury pool has been poisoned in the US thanks to careless politicians. So he needs a deal worked out by his lawyers. Even that would be no guarantee that he would be allowed to live in peace. He probably would not want to come back to the US.

[merrily]

188. Did you mean to reply to me? My post was not about needing a pardon or not.

In any event I don't think Obama (or Hilary) or any Republican will give him a deal.

There is no percentage whatever in appearing "soft" on someone even the highest Democratic officials of the US government have called a traitor. And it's way too late to worry about the info getting out.

[Progressive dog]

252. Well, that is true but

Fleeing to avoid prosecution is certainly not the behavior of a Patriot.

[treestar]

72. In fact, he would get so much attention

I'm surprised he does not do it. Isn't it his pet issue that needs national conversation? If he came back, he would increase the chatter. He is said to be acting on his principles so wouldn't his principles be better served by coming back for the trial?

[bvar22]

156. Snowden would NOT be given a Jury Trial.

If you had watched last night before opening your mouth today
you could have saved yourself the embarrassment.

[msanthrope]

160. Of course he would be given a jury trial, if he wanted that. Why would you think he would not? nt

[treestar]

165. He has the right to trial by jury

Prove there are any federal criminal charges where the Defendant has no right to trial by jury. That's impossible.

[Progressive dog]

251. Sounds to me like you should be emabarrassed

for expecting that your fellow citizens have no desire for justice. He'd get a fair trial, just not a guaranteed acquittal.

[JDPriestly]

185. He could not get a fair trial. The jury pool has been prejudiced against him by the careless

remarks by a number of politicians who should know better.

[Progressive dog]

250. Sixty percent say he's a patriot

per the NBC poll. Sounds to me as if the jury pool is prejudiced in his favor.
Of course, in a trial, actual evidence might change that, but the prosecution needs 100% to convict.

[chimpymustgo]

58. He - and Daniel Ellsberg - have explained that clearly. But I like his going to the court of public

opinion.

[Progressive dog]

97. When is Daniel Ellsburg getting out of prison,

or is he already out?

[treestar]

70. He could argue he complied with the whistleblower law

as he know claims he did.

He could challenge the laws he is charged under.

He could argue the facts.

Funny he wants to be a hero to America but is content never to return to America.

[merrily]

75. Did he say he wanted to be a hero to America?

When I do something I consider to be the right thing, it's not because I expect or want to be a hero to anyone or everyone. It's because I think I'm supposed to do what I think is right. Fine with me if no one knows or approves.

[treestar]

77. True. Maybe he doesn't care

He has supporters who think he's a big hero. Even for refusing to come back.

[merrily]

81. Really? I don't think he's a hero for refusing to come back, but I understand why he doesn't.

I don't think coming back would make him a hero, either, certainly not in the eyes of many here.

He did what he did and it was illegal. Coming back would not make it any less illegal. And no one wants to be the recipient of an execution or a life sentence. Well, okay, maybe some masochists do, but not most people.

[treestar]

148. He would not get a life sentence. He was charged with

statutes that carried 10 years as the maximum.

Plea deals or sentencing reports would lead to less. And all the adulation he would get. Imagine the legal defense fundraising! He hasn't escaped, as he now lives in a truly authoritarian country, which can kick him out at any time.

[merrily]

189. He's been called a traitor by the highest officials of the US and can still be charged with treason.

No guaranty whatever of a plea deal. And, in any event, I can still understand why he won't come back.

This is about his coming back anyway. It's about what he revealed in the first instance and coming back won't unring the bell. I can't believe anyone will change his or opinion on this matter if he decides to come back. That whole issue is a red herring.

The real issue remains the actions of the USG.

[JDPriestly]

187. But he and many Americans believe he did what he did to protect the Constitution.

It is a matter of opinion. The NSA actions and the FISA courts' decisions may, after some years, be determined to be as wrong as slavery.

Nixon left office for a paltry burglary and spying on a few people. What the NSA has done far exceeds any wrongs that Nixon did. Yet we all agree that Nixon was very wrong. He was pardoned or forgiven.

[merrily]

196. As at least one FISA court judge finally began to suggest, the courts are complicit.

The last thing an unelected judge wants is for an attack to occur and for him or her to be blamed for it. So, they bow.

Scalia has said that courts should not decide this issue. How cowardly is that?

[uponit7771]

126. Snowdens hypocrisy is not giving America a say on HIS actions via justice system but we should

... have a say or notice that we're sphing on our allies..

[merrily]

208. You may want to check the definition of hypocrisy.

It really has nothing to do with admitting you stole classified information and then released it.

[Generic Other]

217. And of course General "Star Trek" Bridge Commander Alexander

gave us Americans a say in whether we wished to be monitored 24/7 by the NSA. Gave us a say in whether we wanted a drone and spy center costing 40 billion dollars mostly to spy on us. hmmmm.... General NSA Cheerleader who goes to hackers to try and find good Americans ready to do bad things to other Americans, ready to disregard the law, violate our legal rights, etc. in the name of protecting us from "terrorists" even as they may be the most dangerous threat to our way of life -- way more than a few middle eastern zealots.

[grasswire]

139. this is an ignorant post

You need to bone up on the ramifications of the charges they have applied to Snowden. A defendant under those charges has very little chance to defend himself or challenge the law. It is all closed, and secret, without the usual protections we have under the Constitution.

[arthritisR_US]

143. That is an excellent point. The reality of him being able to defend

himself from charges under the Espionage Act is a joke. Under these circumstances the Constitution becomes toilet paper.

[treestar]

149. NO, he is charged in open court

with federal charges. The ignorant post is yours. He has the same rights as any federal defendant to defend himself. Now people are making stuff up to the same old argument that he should be above the law. There's no reason he should be in a class higher than other Americans. The rest of us have to obey the law.

[grasswire]

152. you are absolutely wrong.

And your post makes no sense at all.

Citizens charged under the Espionage Act have LESS ability to defend themselves.

Please, educate yourself on this.

[JDPriestly]

190. It's in the interest of national security that our government make a deal with him.

And I bet that is what will happen. Sooner or later, someone with a logical mind will persuade the emotional fools that making a deal is the best thing we can do. It's called being pragmatic.

[merrily]

74. ? He's never claimed he broke no laws, has he?

[Progressive dog]

96. He'made lots of claims, I can't keep track of them. eom

[merrily]

99. Seems to be a lot of that making claims and making up claims going around on

all sides of this debate.

[uponit7771]

124. +1

[ucrdem]

13. NBC did about as much for him as they could.

It was a nice show but he's still a criminal motivated by hatred who basically pulled an SBVT on the Obama admin. The networks aided and abetted those a-holes too.

[MohRokTah]

14. He came off as bastshit crazy.

Comparing Snowden's interview last night to other batshit crazy people, he actually makes people like Louie Gohmert and Michelle Bachmann seem rational.

[frylock]

125. duly noted

[ecstatic]

15. I didn't get the sincerity vibe. At all.

He seems like a guy who has created a hero/ super-villain persona for himself and is putting on an act. His tone of voice and "authoritative" delivery was all forced and fake. He was tripped up once or twice during the interview--like when Brian followed up on Snowden's *defense* of the NSA-- and in those brief moments of stammering and backtracking he came across as a real 30 year old young man.

[Bobbie Jo]

39. Agreed. I don't think he did himself

any favors w/this interview.

He came off as narcissistic, grandiose, shady, and totally unsympathetic.

[CanSocDem]

17. And Kerry hasn't finished...

....running for president yet. He knows whose sock puppet he'll be.

The series from PBS FRONTLINE convinced me of Snowden's heroism.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-one---the-program



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#part-two---privacy-lost



.

[Generic Other]

20. Kerry was and has been an embarrassment all around

I am sorry I ever voted for him for president. Guess I was for him before I was against him.

[blm]

35. Sez someone who couldn't hold a candle to Kerry in the public arena and how he has positively

effected this nation's historic record....... more than anyone else you ever voted for.

[Generic Other]

36. A candle that simply blows where the wind blows

gives damn little useful light.

[ProSense]

43. He was spot on about Snowden.

I mean, this OP is spinning his interview as a plea for "clemency."

LOL!

[merrily]

197. Agreeing with Obama's take when you work for Obama does not equal being "spot on."

And, obviously, this OP has nothing to do with Kerry .

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, your post was spot on.

[blm]

44. Sez someone who doesn't know much about the last 4 decades of this nation's REAL history.

You really haven't a clue what you're blubbering about. You repeat what you think fits, yet, it is demonstrably untrue. It's just a meaningless fluff attack.

[merrily]

198. Ah, so you're the one who got the real history book.

[Generic Other]

218. I guess they didn't read about cheating the vote in Ohio

Kerry was not much of a fighter then. Just like Gore in Florida. Too beneath them to get dirty or bloodied. When it mattered, they stood down. I don't have respect for people I vote for doing this.

[BeyondGeography]

49. Yup...keyboard warrior Snowden's the one with guts now

As if I needed more evidence for the absolute absence of taste and judgment from some people here.

[Union Scribe]

145. keyboard warrior?

That phrase does not mean what you think it does.

[BeyondGeography]

146. Well, it did take guts to snooker his co-workers into giving him their passwords

so he could steal information. There is that.

An admittedly high profile keyboard warrior is what Snowden has carved out for himself, once all the super-juicy details of what he pilfered have been released. The names of actual NSA victims are coming, did you hear! And nobody within sniffing distance of this board will be on it. That was an awful lot of excitement for fuck all, wasn't it?

Kerry's starting point as an actual hero was slightly more honorable and so was the rest of his life. Than again, we are comparing an ant with an elephant.

[Union Scribe]

147. again, you're not getting that phrase.

A keyboard warrior is an anonymous online poster who doesn't risk anything. Like, say, most of us here. Snowden is essentially in exile and faces the wrath of the collective US government. He is the opposite of a keyboard warrior.

[BeyondGeography]

150. It's true...I need a proper term

for someone who anonymously steals information and leverages it into a lifetime of Internet celebrity-hood. At any rate, the comparisons with Kerry are sad.

[merrily]

200. Well, that's the correct term, either. Snowden did not steal "anonymously."

If you mean he did not have an audience at the very moments he was stealing, which thief does?

A lifetime of celebrity? In exile? And if he had attempted to hid his entity, that would have won you ovr?

You're really grasping at straws. In fact, most of you are grasping at straws in an attempt to make what he did seem even more sinister. Why do you think that is?

He broke the law in order to disclose info about governmnt activities that the government did not want disclosed. For better or wors, that's it. And, yes, the disclosure embarrassed Obama. That's a risk of running for President and then doing the opposite in office of "the most open administration ever." So, both Obama and Snowden knew the risks of what they were doing.

On group of DUers claims to think that stealing disclosing the info is plenty bad enough, yet they cast about for ways to make it sound worse. Another group of DUers thinks the end justifies the means, though they may not think that in other contexts.

A third group of DUers, and the smallest, as best I can tell, think Snowden is a convenient distraction, taking attention from where it should be. That's the group to which I belong.

Now, lets talk about the USG attempting to use my money secretly to spy on me.

[backscatter712]

45. He was better than Murder Monkey, though that's not saying much. n/t

[Ninga]

18. Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning affectively made conscious decisions

to disclose classified data, tried to make their case to expose wrong doing. They challenged blind trust, and blind trust has won.

I trust the American Civil Liberties Union and their defense of Snowden. I hope they can negotiate his return.

Current laws do not protect such whistleblowers.

[Generic Other]

23. A jury of his peers

would include people like us who do not see him as the criminal in this instance.

[merrily]

201. Even if you follow the law, whistleblowing is still a risky business (no movie pun intended)

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/21/in_unprecedented_obama_admin_crackdown_nsa

[Adrahil]

21. Is he still willing...

To reveal legitimate foreign intelligence operations? If so, then the man is no patriot.

[Generic Other]

25. And the Nazis who tried to bring down Hitler?

Were they not patriots?

[olegramps]

89. That's a bit of a stretch.

I would have much greater admiration for him if he was convinced that their activities were illegal and he choose to have stayed in the United States and made his appeal directly to the people.

I can not fathom how he has advanced his patriotism by revealing the contents of classified material to a number of foreign governments who have demonstrated animosity toward the United States. I held Top Secret clearance and I can not understand how someone can justify revealing information that could possibly harm my fellow citizens after taking a solemn oath not to do so.

If I thought that certain activities were illegal I would have discussed this with my superiors and if they failed to act I would contact, on a strictly confidential basis, our elected representatives who are sworn to uphold the Constitution to take the appropriate action. Going public would be the last and most desperate choice.

[Generic Other]

210. So if he ends his days in solitary

like Chelsea, then and only then could you consider him to have done something ethical?

[olegramps]

224. That response only reveals you lack of faith in the nation.

Our system is not without its flaws, however, it strives to provide justice for all. Your unfounded attempt to cast the system in the light as being a virtual dictatorship that would automatically throw him in to prison is far more typical of the justice meted out in Russia. You totally discount that there were outer options that could have been employed to expose and correct illegal surveillance by NSA. How much different is this attitude than Reagan's Orwellian "government bad?"

Perhaps Regan did a far more better job of undermining our faith in our system of governmental that even he could have imagined. This type of pessimism about the government appears to be not only the main stay of the Tea Party radicals and the conservative cadre of FOX, Limbaugh etc., but to have infected the general population.

I can not help from concluding that this attitude of the total worthlessness of government has the ability to totally over shadow the value of numerous governmental programs and achievements that can not be achieved otherwise. It is being used as an effective weapon to dismantle every safety-net program and privatize every agency. Perhaps the people will only wakeup to the reality when they find themselves destitute and nowhere to turn to.

[Generic Other]

228. The US government has been utterly dysfunctional since Reagan

Even the superhuman efforts of Democrats hasn't changed that course. Just re-arranged the deck chairs. Titanic monumental supercolassal Orwellian state largely due to Reagan and his cronies. So yes, it does show my lack of faith in the men and women who have infiltrated our government with their filthy supply side economics and continual warfare.

[olegramps]

247. The situation will not rectified by giving up on government, but by correction.

The situation can only be changed when the working class comes to their senses and realizes that the oligarchs and their bought and paid for politicians are their enemy. The nation has been faced with this situation under the robber barons and the solution was organized labor.

Unfortunately, the working class bought the corporate propaganda that unions were the enemy and that they would prosper in a unlimited capitalistic economy. Well, we have seen the result that load of horse manure. The working class have had their jobs outsourced, their pensions replaced with IRAs that were at first promised to be matched by company contributions only to see those promised contributions evaporate to increase stock dividends. Not to mention that they have seen significant reductions in heath insurance coverage. Also consider the more fortunate often are expected to put in 50-60 hours a week to maintain their positions with many on call 24 hours a day.

We have to sadly admit that the workers have screwed their own self and the ship will only be righted when they are destitute and the scenario of the early 1900s is replayed once again.

[Generic Other]

248. One can love the land

and hate what the oligarchs are doing to it. I think this is the issue. The bosses and the scabs have taken over. Interesting that you bring up the 1900s. I suppose the Wobblies often felt the same sense of frustration you are expressing about the plight of the worker. Snowden and Joe Hill are brothers IMO.

[Adrahil]

95. Are you arguing that US Foreign intelligence operation=Nazis?

Here's the thing.... Snowden exposed some stuff that probably shouldn't be happening. He also exposed operations that do not, in any fashion, violate the Constitution or or other laws. At what point does he stop getting a free pass for CLEAR violations of the law on his part?

Now.... I don't think Snowden is a willing spy for foreign powers. I think he is an idealistic naive dupe. And if I was a foreign intelligence service, I would consider him the greatest asset ever. I mean, if I can have citizens in a foreign nation to CHEER for a man who dismantles their intelligence capabilities and reveals them for everyone to see, I'm a happy guy.


I'm definitely a Bernie Sanders man on this one. I am glad some of those operations were revealed so we can respond appropriately, but he doesn't get a free pass, especially considering his willing to spill the beans on legitimate operations.

[Generic Other]

215. At least you have thought about it

The knee jerk responses that really are about defending Obama are in my opinion ridiculous. It is not about Obama. It is about whether Americans want to be good Germans or not. Clearly, some of us refuse to be. Sorry if this offends the sensibilities of others. Or even seems hyperbolic to some. This is an issue I happen to feel very strongly about. Government has no business poking into the daily lives of its citizens without due process, and when they take more liberties than they are granted by law, good men and women must stand up to insist they have overstepped their authority.

[uponit7771]

128. Like school in the summer time, no class

[Generic Other]

216. Bless your heart

I have no class because I happen to have an opinion you don't share. Nice.

[MelungeonWoman]

22. NBC had a graphic on the morning talk show...

Interviewed audience view of Snowden before the interview: 53% traitor, 47% patriot.

After the interview: 61% patriot, 39% traitor.

[vi5]

52. I was completely Snowden agnostic before the interview

I thought he came off well. Made some good points.

[Autumn]

24. He did come off way better than John Kerry did.

Clapper is a creep, and a liar

[Scuba]

27. I didn't see the interview and care little about Snowden. At this point he's a distraction ....

... from the problems he exposed.

I did think Kerry's "man up" remark was assinine.

[Ninga]

32. Snowden and PBS both feel we need to be educated about Gov survalance...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

[randome]

37. How about a graphic with Snowden's other interpretation of those who steal and run?

When he said leakers should be shot in the balls.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

38. Knock yourself out.

[merrily]

195. Bingo! The more anyone makes it about Snowden and/or Greenwald, the less they make it

about the USG. That is the real issue.

[Generic Other]

28. Tell me which elected politicians have humbled themselves

to explain their support of militarism, fascist government, and spying on their own people? Hahahaha.

[on point]

29. And award him Medal of Freedom for service to the country

[frazzled]

30. It made a few paragraphs on page 19 of the New York Times

It's not even a story.

[Smarmie Doofus]

42. He did very well. Throughly decent person and super-smart.

You can't fake it. K and R

[lostincalifornia]

90. super smart? an average intelligent person would have gone to a country for asylum first before

releasing the documents.

A person who has supported Ron Paul is not super-smart in my book either.

[Avalux]

51. You're throwing around a lot of highly subjective words in your post.

I watched the interview, and 'searing sincerity' is not how I would describe Snowden. Why are you comparing him to Kerry? Absurd.

Snowden is nothing more than an opportunist; he found a way to expose NSA secrets and he did it; then gladly accepted help from a country that would enthusiastically jump at the chance to get their hands on those documents, putting himself first.

I do credit Snowden with exposing NSA surveillance details to the public, but that's it. He willingly broke laws and knew the consequences.

A true hero or patriot, as you think Snowden is, would have stayed and faced those consequences without care of his own safety. Portraying him as some kind of fantastical superhero and expecting exoneration is ridiculous.

[ancianita]

80. Russia might jump at the chance, but Snowden claims he had no documents to put into their hands.

"...And so, that Sunday, Snowden and Sarah Harrison boarded Aeroflot Flight SU213 without incident. Snowden had his four laptops, but, he says, they had no government information on them and never did. He says he carried no documents. “I didn’t want to risk bringing them through Russia.” If all went well, they would be in Moscow by dinnertime..."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2014/05/edward-snowden-politics-interview

[Avalux]

87. Of course he claims that, but how do we know?

How far would he go to bring down our government? We really just don't know, and all we have is his word. Why should we trust him?

[ancianita]

94. Why shouldn't we? Why should we trust Clapper and the NSA or Kerry or the White House?

My point is that it's an unfair argument for you to imply that he had documents when he left for Russia. That's how one reasonably reads what you wrote.

He should at least be quoted as much as possible when everyone here is judging him for good or ill.

[grasswire]

155. bring down our government?

Where do you get the idea that Snowden's goal is to bring down our government?

[Enthusiast]

53. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[Thinkingabout]

60. A patriot would not have given information to anyone which has been received by foreign countries.

A traitor would give information about our security to fall in the hands of foreign countries. Snowden is a traitor, perhaps too young and immature to understand his actions, but this does not excuse the crimes he has committed. For those who still want to count him as a hero, you have a zero.

[merrily]

62. He's not my hero, but I don't think you know whether the information that foreign countries got

was news to them.

This board is really funny to me.


One minute people are claiming that everyone has known all of this since 2002 and why didn't people make this much of a fuss about Bush.

The next minute, people assume that foreign governments were more clueless than they were, even though most or all of them have been working closely with the USG on counterterrorism for 13 years and counting.

[uponit7771]

129. It could have been and that's bad enough

[merrily]

192. No, it really isn't. Telling someone something they already know is a non-event, not a crime.

[ancianita]

83. He handed the documents to two American citizens, not foreign countries. Get your facts straight.

"...And so, that Sunday, Snowden and Sarah Harrison boarded Aeroflot Flight SU213 without incident. Snowden had his four laptops, but, he says, they had no government information on them and never did. He says he carried no documents. “I didn’t want to risk bringing them through Russia.” If all went well, they would be in Moscow by dinnertime..."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2014/05/edward-snowden-politics-interview

[uponit7771]

131. ummm, Chinese media = Chinese government... there's no one who beleives they're seperate

[ancianita]

144. What? Snowden turned over docs to Americans. Do you have some 'in' with Chinese intel?

Do you have some evidence beyond what the three agents themselves report about when and who got the documents?

Please link.

[merrily]

193. Link? I've seen that claim before, but could not find a link to support it.

Someone on the thread had asked the poster who made the claim at that time to provide a link. He ignored the request. He also ignored my comment about not being able to find a link.

Do you, by any chance, have a link?

PS. I did at that time find a link to an article in a English from a Chinese newspaper, but it had less than nothing to do with revealing any info about the USG.

[Thinkingabout]

161. On the facts, he gave information Merkel had conversations monitored, she is from Germany,

Germany is not a part of the US, now for the facts. BTW, I did not state he had given the documents to other countries but information was passed.

[ancianita]

162. Merkel, an ALLY, found out what was in docs he took from the NSA.

A patriot would not have given information to anyone which has been received by foreign countries.

Guess that makes you and me patriots, then.

A traitor would give information about our security to fall in the hands of foreign countries.

The docs weren't "in the hands" of foreign countries.

You're so taken by this criminal government's attempts to cover its own unconstitutional, criminal activity that by calling Snowden a traitor and criminal, you don't even know who protects or endangers your freedoms.

If anyone knows a whistleblower when he sees one, it's Daniel Ellsberg. When he says Snowden's a whistleblower, it's solid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-daniel-ellsberg-whistleblower-history_n_3413545.html

Here's his and other whistleblowers' open letter to intel agencies:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/11/whistleblowers-open-letter-after-snowden-revelations

[merrily]

194. Merkel didn't know she was monitoring? And she didn't know the US knew about her monitoring?

She clearly already knew both. The US and Germany are "partners in the WOT. They share info. She knew the US was monitoring her government, along with everyone else.

Who didn't know she was monitoring her own country's people? Her own country's people. Much as in the US.

When her people got angry about the monitoring, she put on a dog and pony show about chiding the US for monitoring her personal cell. Her personal cell. Not a word about her government's offices, including her own.

[merrily]

203. Giving info to someone who already has it is a national security problem?

[Thinkingabout]

206. Is China a part of the US? He provided information of our monitoring of China.

These are foreign countries which has been furnished security information of the US from the Snowden source. Yes, this makes him a traitor.

[merrily]

207. Who said China (or Germany) was part of the US? Also, do you have a link on China? Please see #193

Also, I have never said that Snowden either is or is not a traitor.

Your reply to my post omitted any response the one question that my post did ask.

[rtracey]

61. Traitor - Patriot

THIEF........zzzzzzz on Snowden, and Greenwald, and Manning.... If get into my work computers and steal their files, I am a thief.... So thats my opinion, and responses will not change that so.....

[zeemike]

76. If you found files on your work computer that showed your company was committing crimes

would you keep your mouth shut because it would be a crime to take them and show the evidence?

I guess that is a moral position that no one wants to confront...beter to keep your mouth shut and save your ass than the ass of the victims of a crime...

[rtracey]

108. Sorry, i dont see the logic

Crimes ? yes... digging up information to use as a "weapon", "a tool".....a little different in my book, but again thats me. Stumbling onto a file that lead to a crime is one thing, but precise infiltration, seek, downloading......different.

[zeemike]

134. So mass surveillance of the American people, against the constitution

That every military person takes to protect and defend is not a crime?
I find that notion disturbing.

[merrily]

209. He learned of something that he thought Americans should know.

If you want to call that infiltration, fine, but I don't think that's what the word means.

To disclose what he thought Americans should know, he had to download it.

I think you are trying to make distinctions that don't really matter.

[Generic Other]

219. Like not exposing Enron and the calls about

ripping off Grandma Millie in California when they nearly turned off the state's electricity and laughed about it? Defended by Chimpy the whole way?

[lostincalifornia]

84. He is no patriot, and he is an idiot also for not getting to a country where he wanted asylum first

before releasing the documents.

[ancianita]

98. He was SMART not to want his plane grounded by US intervention.Presidents of 5 S. American countries

haven't been so lucky.

On July 3, Jen Psaki, spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State, acknowledged that the U.S. had been "in contact with a range of countries across the world who had any chance of having Mr. Snowden land or even transit through their countries".[12][13]
On September 20, Evo Morales announced a lawsuit against the U.S. government for "crimes against humanity" for repeatedly blocking presidential flights, after an incident in which authorization for an overflight of Puerto Rico by President Maduro of Venezuela was delayed, although U.S. authorities said that they were entitled to three days' advance notice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident

[lostincalifornia]

151. Did you read my blurb? Secure the country then release the documents

Something doesn't pass the smell test with that one since he now readily admits he was trained as a spy.

[Android3.14]

86. I see the too-much-time-on-their-hands crowd has arrived

All eight of them.

"Subconsciously, he feels his own powerlessness and needs the leader to control this feeling. This masochistic and submissive individual, who fears freedom and escapes into idolatry, is the person on which the authoritarian systems — Nazism and Stalinism — rest." - Erich Fromm

[George II]

88. When did it become acceptable to attack the personal appearance of someone one disagrees with?

[treestar]

104. The attacks on Kerry are funny because it's often said it is not about Eddie

But when someone opposes Eddie as hero in any way, it's about that person.

[chimpymustgo]

171. Just marveling at Kerry's descent into ridiculousness.

[Puzzledtraveller]

93. Had Edward Snowden happened under a President Mitt Romney

DU would be in complete harmony.

[Smarmie Doofus]

100. It's pretty much in complete harmony anyway.

9% of posters do not a consensus make.

Nor a mark of any real significance.

[treestar]

111. Nobody would be paying any attention

Rmoney's actions would have been bad enough to crowd out Eddie's whistleblowing. Eddie would not have bothered to do it. Glenn could get fame and sell books with much "better" stories.

We'd have Rmony himself to go after. Even on DU, that's a bigger target than a Dem President.

[Skittles]

112. they'd be onboard if it was any other Democratic prez too

this swooning is limited to just one

[randome]

117. No. In that scenario, Snowden would have picked up a gun and shot himself in the balls.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Puzzledtraveller]

153. Lol.

Is this after he was discovered to be a founding member of the "He-Man Woman Haters Club"?

[uponit7771]

133. BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!

Lying about stealing documents then giving them to adversaries and being propped by pooty poot ... no one would support that who's fully informed

[Ikonoklast]

158. You assume a great deal.

[OKNancy]

102. He did? I watched basketball.

[smallcat88]

106. The interview had an impact

Polls before the interview showed 53% thought of Snowden as a traitor; this morning, polls are showing 61% think he's a patriot. As usual, we'll have to wait at least 20-30 years for history to render it's judgment.

[johnny156]

109. Snowden

Snowden is a patriot like my

ass is a patriot> He will die a traitor.

[MohRokTah]

121. But he is a Double Naught Spy~

Too bad he had to give up becoming a brain surgeon in order to become a Double Naught Spy:

[gcomeau]

110. Umm, no. No he is not a patriot.

If he had limited himself to reporting on inappropriate or arguably illegal NSA activities that argument could be made. But that is emphatically NOT what he did. He also indiscriminately released operational and technical details of LEGITIMATE NSA intelligence activities directed at foreign networks, compromising the ability of the NSA to do it's actual real job.

There is no excusing or justifying that betrayal by appeal to "but he released some stuff I think we should have known toooooo", and there is no arguing that that behavior is consistent with patriotism.


I'm sorry to all the Snowden cheerleaders, but he rightly belongs in a cell.

[bluedigger]

123. I thought Snowden made his case pretty well, given the format.

I think all the Snowden bashing here at DU prejudiced my opinion towards him, and the interview served to increase my sympathy towards his motives, although I still disagree with his methods. (Not unlike my feelings towards our State security apparatus, coincidentally.) I have always felt he should come home and face trial, however I now doubt it would be anything more than a show trial, with the verdict preordained, and understand his reluctance to go down that road.

[chimpymustgo]

141. Thanks for your candor. It was important for Americans to see and hear Snowden unfiltered.

As cited above, public opinion about him changed overnight.

[bvar22]

157. There is only a handful that bash him,

but they ARE dedicated...obsessed really.
If you placed 3 or 4 on Ignore, this thread would look very different.
I wouldn't work THAT hard unless I was getting paid.
Anyway, they are transparent.

The goal is not to convince anyone of anything.

It is to thoroughly hijack, pollute and therefore eliminate public spaces where real discussion and organization can occur. Occupy is disbanded with clubs and pepper spray. Dissent and organization online are disrupted with surveillance and propaganda.

[font size=3]It is no accident that propaganda brigades post new threads on discussion boards far out of proportion to their presence in the community, and that they nearly *always* demand the last word in any interchange. [/font]

The goal is to disrupt the important public space for liberal thought, discussion, and organization that these boards offer, and to keep the participants busy instead batting off the corporate lies and talking points.

woo me with science Sun Jul 28, 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801

[Jakes Progress]

172. Paid is my guess.

Take a couple of the most petulant and prolific. Do a style analysis of their writing and argumentation over a long period and any teacher of Freshman College English could tell you that the same ID is used by more than one person. I suspect that beer and pizza money is fueling some college students who have the time to be obnoxious attack dogs. Every semester or so, the style changes as the job moves to another kid who needs a few bucks when one graduates or flunks out.

The question is how high up is the funding source.

[dougolat]

176. Amazing, how they expect us to ignore the treatment of whistleblowers

... and a dozen years of history
... and the 4th Amendment

[stonecutter357]

138. libertarians strike me as very odd.

No he is not a patriot.and I think all you eddie fans are on my juryblack list so i think it is safe to post this

[Whisp]

154. patsy

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Autumn]

166. I watched the NBC interview. Snowden came out looking good.

John man up Kerry? Not so good.

[carolinayellowdog]

168. He served the interests of humanity which includes Americans, as for the patriotism...

for those who exalt US interests over everyone else's, maybe not. Universal surveillance by International MIC in collaboration with corporations... not in "our" interest as human beings however much temporary utility it has for "American national interests."

[merrily]

205. At DU, is really about exalting the US's interests above everyone else's? If

Bush were President now, would the DU posts be the same?

Then again, Obama seems to have joined the American Exceptionalism camp, so maybe now some here will as well.

[nikto]

175. Snowden is worse than a billion Hitlers

Way way way way way worse.

He has already doomed the human race to annhilation.


The Master Pro =============================A Rank Amateur






Smart folks know what Evil really is

[Tarheel_Dem]

178. Well, I'm glad you saw it. Hopefully, the audience in his new country was bigger.

Edward Snowden-Brian Williams Interview Beaten by CBS Rerun

Edward Snowden? Living in Russia, world’s most wanted leaker of government secrets, Snowden, you’d think, would be a huge “get” for any network anchor. Last night Brian Williams got the scoop and presented an interview with Snowden called “Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden” on NBC.

Big ratings? They were ok. The total viewer number was 5.91 and the key demo was 1.3. But “Inside” didn’t win its time slot. It was beaten by a rerun of “CSI” on CBS. “CSI” had a larger total audience– 6.14 million viewers. Of course, the “CSI” viewers were slightly older, as the rerun scored a 1.1 in the key demo.

How frustrating for Williams et al that not a lot of people cared about finally seeing and hearing Snowden. It didn’t help that NBC didn’t care very much either. The lead in was a two rerun of “Last Comic Standing.” They had this big news scoop, and didn’t bother to just put it on at 8pm and say Here, look what we’ve got. Maybe that’s why the Snowden interview was also beaten for the night by CBS’s rerun of “Criminal Minds.”

Fiction is better than fact!

http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/05/29/tv-edward-snowden-brian-williams-interview-beaten-by-cbs-rerun


I'm also guessing that, unfortunately for Comrade, folks in this country have already made up their minds about him. Otherwise, this interview should have shattered all kinds of viewership records. Everyone who already agreed with Snowie tuned in, and in the real world that means exactly...ZIP!

A special gift for Comrade:

[djean111]

202. I don't watch anything political on television.

That includes Snowden.
And Obama.
I do watch GOP debates, though, because those are always horrifically entertaining.
Actual political speeches are just rhetoric; I don't get all swoony over commencement speeches or fund-raising blather.

It is awfully amusing, though, to see ratings brandished about as some sort of verdict on America's opinion.
The Snowden bashing has merely gotten trite and boring, and does/did nothing to mitigate to importance of what he revealed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

233. Then what was this PR stunt for if not to change American minds? Isn't this to build support for...

future clemency? These numbers have remained steady throughout. It was his big debut to change the hearts & minds of the people who think he should stand trial, right?

Poll: Most think Edward Snowden should stand trial in U.S.

Most Americans – 61 percent - think Snowden should have to stand trial in the United States for his actions. Far fewer – 23 percent - think he should be granted amnesty. Republicans, Democrats, and independents all agree on this as well.

Meanwhile, 31 percent approve of Snowden’s actions, while most, 54 percent, disapprove. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents disapprove.

Americans are divided as to the impact on the country from making the NSA program public. While 40 percent think the disclosure has been good for the country, 46 percent think it has been bad.

When asked to come up with a word that describes Edward Snowden, nearly a quarter volunteer either traitor or a similar word that questions his loyalty to his country, while 8 percent say he is “brave” or “courageous” or “a hero”. Just 2 percent volunteered that he is a patriot or patriotic, and another 2 percent say “terrorist”.

If only his fanclub tuned in, then he's right back where he's always been.

[djean111]

235. I really think that Snowden does not have a "fan club" at all - there is just the ridiculous charge

that if you don't hate him, you must be a fan.
Trial by poll seems sort of ridiculous. I don't put any store by polls, really, because a lot of the people responding to them get their information from places like Faux.

[Tarheel_Dem]

236. In other words, you don't care what your fellow Americans think. Got it!

[djean111]

237. I hatesss to pull a Godwin, but just blindly following what all one's other countrymen think can be

perilous indeed.
I find the idea of just going along with the crowd instead of going by my own beliefs repugnant. Especially with the way the MSM lies all day, every day.
Go ahead and live your life by polls.

[merrily]

204. Please tell me you are not implying that the low ratings reflect badly on Snowden.

That would be so sad.

[Tarheel_Dem]

231. I know. I feel your pain. It is sad, isn't it?

[merrily]

246. Sorry you're hurting, but it's not my pain you're feeling. I'm not in any pain.

[blkmusclmachine]

179. ,

,

[Progressive dog]

254. He just needs to come home and make

his case before a jury of his peers.

[Zorra]

260. The purpose of the government is to protect the 1% from the threat of democracy.

In order to protect the 1% effectively, the government needs to spy on everyone in order to better be able to prevent democracy from happening.

[woo me with science]

264. That was probably the first time most people

have been able to hear his message directly from him, instead of through the corporate filter of pro-NSA shills describing him.

He did an impressive job, and the message is indisputable for any American who still has some vague memory of early civic education and understanding of the Constitution.

[Tarheel_Dem]

265. Um. Not so much.

More Americans Oppose Edward Snowden's Actions Than Support Them

By Mark Murray

More Americans oppose Edward Snowden’s decision to flee the U.S. with thousands of stolen documents and reveal confidential details about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs than those who support his actions, according to a new NBC News poll.

The findings come in the wake of “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams’ wide-ranging, exclusive interview with Snowden, which aired on NBC primetime last Wednesday. Yet, the nation’s opinion of the former government contractor turned world’s most wanted man changes significantly by age.

<...>

The poll shows a striking difference of opinion in Snowden by age. Those ages 18 to 34 tend support Snowden’s actions, by 32 percent to 20 percent, and view him a favorable light, compared with all other age groups who don’t.

<...>

The NBC poll finds Americans -- by a 2-to-1 margin – view Snowden in a negative light: 27 percent of voters have an unfavorable opinion of him, while 13 percent have a positive one.

http://www.nbcnews.com/#/news/us-news/more-americans-oppose-edward-snowdens-actions-support-them-n119476

And then, of course, there's this:

Edward Snowden-Brian Williams Interview Beaten by CBS Rerun


Edward Snowden? Living in Russia, world’s most wanted leaker of government secrets, Snowden, you’d think, would be a huge “get” for any network anchor. Last night Brian Williams got the scoop and presented an interview with Snowden called “Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden” on NBC.

Big ratings? They were ok. The total viewer number was 5.91 and the key demo was 1.3. But “Inside” didn’t win its time slot. It was beaten by a rerun of “CSI” on CBS. “CSI” had a larger total audience– 6.14 million viewers. Of course, the “CSI” viewers were slightly older, as the rerun scored a 1.1 in the key demo.

How frustrating for Williams et al that not a lot of people cared about finally seeing and hearing Snowden. It didn’t help that NBC didn’t care very much either. The lead in was a two rerun of “Last Comic Standing.” They had this big news scoop, and didn’t bother to just put it on at 8pm and say Here, look what we’ve got. Maybe that’s why the Snowden interview was also beaten for the night by CBS’s rerun of “Criminal Minds.”

Fiction is better than fact!

http://www.showbiz411.com/2014/05/29/tv-edward-snowden-brian-williams-interview-beaten-by-cbs-rerun

[woo me with science]

266. Actually, polls have pretty consistently indicated that Americans distrust NSA spying

and believe the government has overreached and violated civil liberties.

Not that polls are relevant to the defense of our fundamental Constitutional protections anyway, but you can look up all major polling from the beginning of this year, and results are pretty consistent.

January 2014 CNN Poll:
Majority oppose NSA, Obama's address had little impact
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/20/poll-majority-oppose-nsa-obamas-address-had-little-impact/

January 2014 USA Today/Pew Research Poll:
Most Americans now oppose the NSA program
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/20/poll-nsa-surveillance/4638551/

January 2014 Summary of Polls by Electronic Frontier Foundation (ABC News/Washington Post, Pew/Huffington Post, Anzalone Lizst Grove Research, Rasmussen, Harvard University Institute of Politics
Update: Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying



Your crew keeps posting this one poll about perceptions of Snowden himself. But it's not a surprise that Americans weren't sure what to think of Snowden himself, given the constant barrage of smear coming from our corporate media.

This interview was probably the first time many have had the chance to hear from Snowden in his own words, unfilted by corporate pundits and smearers,

Following the interview, poll numbers turned significantly to support him.

This interview showed that, given the opportunity to hear directly from him instead of through the filter of the smear machine, people agree with his reasoning, which has been implied in their poll responses to the NSA spying all along.

[Tarheel_Dem]

267. Oh, there's more than one, and they all say the same thing.

"Snowden is Fucked".