Snowden's latest leak is about our spying on Russia. Is he trying to start WW3?

[pnwmom]

To set the US, China, and Russia against each other?

I don't honestly think he is, but wars often begin with what seem to be small issues. He's treading in very dangerous waters.

I'm also worried about how Obama will accomplish anything else as President, with what could be an unending drip of classified documents over the next three years.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/16/leaked-documents-nsa-intercepted-russian-presidents-communications/

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

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


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

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

SNIP

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Maybe you should ask the guys who did the spying?

[DJ13]

2. I'm sure thats it

[SugarShack]

104. Is he a patsy? I just wanted to throw that in there, because they are reading this.

[cali]

3. bwahahahahaha. and you lot run around telling those of us who find the NSA

mass surveillance disturbing that we're acting like our hair is on fire.

lol.

perfect.

[reformist2]

4. Now look who's hair is on fire! LOL

[morningfog]

11. It's POUTRAGE! Nothing new here, lol.

[Nay]

5. He's trying to start something, and good for him. All of this shit being disclosed is absolute

horseshit, should not be done on American citizens, and that's that. I don't care if every fucking court in the country says it's A-OK, it ain't.

So, if this country is so high and mighty that it feels it has the right to throw itself around like this, then it's time somebody, anybody, stands up and says 'no way.'

[RobertEarl]

6. This is news to you?

That the US spies on Russia? Bwhahahaha

And you have the audacity to hope to change the conversation from Obama to Snowden?

Obama is spying on you. Well, the Obama govt is. I guess when your name ends up on a list somewhere, you'll finally grok it?

[FarCenter]

7. Not clear whether it was an intercept -- sounds more like traffic analysis

If it was an intercept, it was probably stuff that the Russians wanted us to read. I don't see head-of-state diplomatic cables being sent via a crackable cypher in this day and age.

[randome]

8. How far we have been led astray.

What's the next James Bond thriller going to look like?

M: "007, your mission is to go into Hong Kong, contact Ed Snowden and destroy the documents stored on his thumb drive that prove we are spies."

Bond: "What? A thumb drive? Does it shoot bullets?"

M: "No. It's just a thumb drive."

Bond: "No death rays? Remote controlled access to our nuclear arsenal?"

M: "No. It's just a thumb drive."

Bond: "In Hong Kong? Miss Moneypenney! I have a favor to ask!"

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[RobertEarl]

17. Your hero is Bond?

Your sig line says something about be a hero. Do you mean to say we should all be Bonds?

You do realize that Bond is fictional, right?

Otherwise your post has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

[randome]

20. My post has even LESS than nothing to do with the OP. It is but a jest.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[longship]

23. You forgot the obligatory visit from the head of Q Branch.

One can imagine what Q would put in a dummy thumb drive these days.

Of course, no Q briefing would be complete without a reminder about the expense of the item and that Q expects it to be returned intact.

[ucrdem]

9. Obama is set to talk privately with Putin today,

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

or maybe he already did, at the G8. Naturally the Guardian stirs up Russia trouble, just like they did last week when Obama was talking to Xi. So clever, those Brits.

-----------------
ETA: I'd like to make it very clear that I have no bone to pick with anyone from the UK and appreciate their contributions to DU. I realized that this post seemed to be causing friction so I edited it. Apologies for any personal offense given or taken, it wasn't intended.

[Monkie]

12. in the UK/EU its the british that get of worst from these leaks

the spying happened in the UK, the turkish are furious as well.
the latest leaks reflect badly on the "fake left" in the UK who were in charge at the time, and the RW that is in charge now and has to face all the anger from the russians, turks, and south africans, and the whole of the G20. the way it was portrayed in the guardian the spying on russia was a tiny part of the whole

[ucrdem]

14. Interesting.

Thanks Monkie, always good to get another perspective. And I sometimes forget to mention that all views expressed are IMHO, YMMV (just my humble opinion, your mileage may vary)!

[Monkie]

21. a little more then.

the guardian seriously embarrassed the UK this time, 1/3 of the frontpage of the website was different links to part of the story on the UK's spying of the G20 in 2009, thats where the latest info comes from.
also not many of the people claiming snowden is a traitor seem to realise all the redacting that is being done, the UK has really really strict official secrecy laws.

[ucrdem]

24. Well, I just checked Google news and at the tippy top, there's Glenn

with his preppy mugshot making some idiotic hero claim for Snowden. So from where I sit the Guardian is a happy little propaganda organ doing its spooky thing.

[ucrdem]

26. Here's the link:

And there's Snowboy too, latest victim of the Kenyan despot, looking forlorn and all-American:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

[Monkie]

29. you just checked collaborator news central, cool story

wow, why so hostile all of a sudden?
did you look at the front page of the guardian? no pictures of glenn on the frontpage.
propaganda organ for who?
spooky thing for who?
last night the guardian produced a dump of epic proportions that equally embarrassed the 2 main parties in the UK.

[ucrdem]

34. No hostility, but you posted 3 poorly punctuated posts without one link

and one click just disproved your claims.

[Monkie]

36. i didnt realise you wanted that kind of proof? i was not quoting anyone?

you could of just typed www.guardian.co.uk into the address bar if you had wanted to?
i was not posting in depth quotes just my impression from where i sit from reading the mass of leaks that hit the UK yesterday evening at 20.45 UK time.

[Monkie]

45. here you go then

these are the articles from yesterdays guardian you asked for, excluding a editorial or two that were more general and the main story i cant seem to find in the search.

g20 uk spying on turkey
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/g20-surveillance-turkey-targeted-gchq
uk spying on south africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/gchq-south-african-foreign-ministry
uk plans to spy on commonwealth conference
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/uk-intelligence-agencies-spy-commonwealth-delegates
the leaked documents
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2013/jun/16/gchq-surveillance-the-documents
the UK's left wing leaders reputation and the g20
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/gordon-brown-reputation-g20-london
the UK's laws on spying on foreigners
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/16/laws-intelligence-agencies-spy-foreign
the UK's history of spying on visiting dignitaries
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/britain-history-spying-visiting-dignitaries

and the one story about the NSA spying on russia with the UK's help at the same g20 summit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medvedev-g20-summit

happy now?

[ucrdem]

46. Turkey and South Africa aren't at the G8. Russia is.

In fact as I already mentioned Obama and Putin had a private chat today. So the rest is what they call in the craft baloney.

[Monkie]

56. going all jekyll and hyde on me, mr craftsman?

i think i backed up what i said, if you dont see the connection between the G8 and the G20 that is not my problem, you asked for links, you have your links, now back off mr. jekyll or put up.

[ucrdem]

57. Suit yourself.

Strange conversations I'm having.

[Monkie]

60. it was ok until you accused me of making claims and you disproving them

especially in such a lazy and amateur way, its insulting, at least make some effort and be credible.
and then i back up what i had said in casual conversation with a lot of links and it is still not enough for you.
you did not even have time to read half of them and you were already dismissing them.

just because some democrats let themselves be bullied does not mean i will fall for crap like that.

[ucrdem]

62. Are you saying you're a Democrat? And you're in the UK?

That doesn't make sense. And what crap are you not falling for?

[davidpdx]

73. I believe I've told you this before

There are Americans who live abroad. A little dense aren't we?

[Monkie]

48. oh and proof of the D-notice (censorship) served on the UK press by government

i think thats everything you asked for?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-media-censor-surveillance-security

[truebrit71]

43. "the Guardian is a happy little propaganda organ" says everything I need to know about you...

...The Guardian happens to be one of the best newspapers in the UK, if not the world, and your derision simply makes you look ill-informed..

[ucrdem]

47. Yes I keep hearing that. Also that Snowden is my hero.

From all the very best posters too. Fancy that.

[truebrit71]

49. Bye!

Welcome to ignore you gripper..

[ucrdem]

51. Cheerio nt

[randome]

61. Those were a couple of entertaining subthreads!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ucrdem]

63. Curiouser and curiouser.

[Kolesar]

78. & now the blue twit will have one less person to bait

since he made use of the ignore feature

[ucrdem]

107. .

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. 'Propaganda' for whom?

I doubt there's a significant media entity in the world that's closer to the ethos and politics of DU than The Guardian. It's centre-left, very supportive of Democrats in the US, and of Labour, or sometimes the Lib Dems (on Iraq, for instance, becasue they were against the invasion).

If you call the Guardian 'a happy little propaganda organ', then I have to ask you what your own politics are. The only time I hear the Guardian called that in the UK are either from the far left (ie genuine communists - people who call themselves Trotskyite etc.) or from the right wing.

[ucrdem]

94. Since you asked, I laid it all out here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023037645

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. No, that lays out nothing at all; who do you think the Guardian prints propaganda for?

And what are your politics?

[ucrdem]

98. What are my politics? Check my sig. And what are your politics?

If I may ask the same question? And I am very interested in your detailed answer.

As for the rest, I'm satisfied that I explained the Guardian's game in my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023037645

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. No, you don't explain anything about the Guardian's 'game' there

Yet again, who do you think they print propaganda on behalf of?

My politics are roughly the leftish wing of the Lib Dems in the UK - eg Charles Kennedy, their leader from 1999 to 2006. Your signatures seem to indicate you agree with Obama; in which case, why do you think a paper that has extensively supported him prints 'propaganda'?

[ucrdem]

101. Let's see, who runs espionage for the foreign office?

Maybe you can help us out?

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. The British security services - the people most embarrassed by the G20 spying story?

Are you saying that MI6 has leaked these stories to embarrass itself?

[ucrdem]

105. I'm sure they were frightfully embarrassed. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. Have you just realised your conspiracy theory makes no sense whatsoever?

Is that why you've made a non-answer?

[morningfog]

10. Obama made his bed. I have been saying for some time

that Obama is a lame duck because he has failed to maintain the frame and the narrative. He made this bed, though, by "legalizing" and embracing bush policies.

[sarisataka]

13. I believe it is no more of a secret to Russia

that we spy on them than it is a secret that they spy on us

[leveymg]

15. Not a WWIII issue - We spy on them, they spy on us. It's expected.

[still_one]

16. no, but by him doing this, he is no longer in a whistle blower category, but a traitor

"Spying on Americans" is one thing, but disclosing our methods for Russia and China IS crossing the line.

[marions ghost]

22. They have an idea of our methods

I think...

[still_one]

28. If he stayed with domestic spying that would be valid, but going international crosses the line, and

regardless of whether they have an idea of our methods or not, he is confirming it.

By doing this, he has essentially made this about him, and I would bet everything that he professed he wanted to expose about domestic spying, will now take a back seat.

For himself personally, if he wanted to sway the populous in the U.S., by going international, he will have lost their sympathy

[marions ghost]

38. I am glad to know what Snowden has revealed

and no, I don't think domestic spying will take a back seat. For one thing--it's all one gigantic linked system of databases. We are e-spying on the whole world. We have the capacity to investigate every person in the US and many others on the planet. Why are we doing this? You have to ask the hard questions. There is no justification for this, domestically or internationally. And I hope other countries are angry about it. We are living in a connected world. A dangerously connected world. You can't say it's bad here & it's OK over there. Not the right way to look at this.

----------
We the American People are ultimately responsible for what our government does around the world.

As we have seen, the abuse they will do to us, they will do to other people as well. So I am glad to know ALL of this that Snowden is confirming:
----------------------
News stories based on documents disclosed by Snowden were as follows:

On June 5, the Guardian released a top secret order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that ordered a business division of Verizon Communications to provide "on an ongoing daily basis" metadata for all telephone calls “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls” and all calls made “between the United States and abroad.”
On June 6, the Guardian and the Washington Post revealed PRISM, a clandestine electronic surveillance program that allegedly allows the NSA to access e-mail, web searches, and other Internet traffic in realtime.
On June 9, the Guardian revealed Boundless Informant, a system that "details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information [the NSA] collects from computer and telephone networks."
On June 12, the South China Morning Post disclosed that the NSA has been hacking into computers in China and Hong Kong since 2009.
On June 15, the Guardian revealed that the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency, worked jointly with the NSA to eavesdrop on a Group of 8 meeting of industrialized nations in London in 2009.
On June 17, the Guardian revealed that the GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at the 2009 G-20 London Summit.[8]
(Wiki)

[still_one]

67. So are you saying we should not have any international intelligence, which does involve spying. If

So, I suspect that will go nowhere, especially post 9/11

Note I am saying international, not domestic

[marions ghost]

70. No not saying that

because that would be unrealistic as there's a huge investment in spying of all sorts. But I don't think
the extent of it is justified, either here or in other countries.

Since today everything is global, the allegiances to corporate entities can trump what's good for the country. So we need to know who the spying is really for. Most international spying is not done "to keep us safe." It is for economic and political reasons that have little to do with our safety. Monitoring of groups that might be harmful to us is only a fraction of it, but it's been used to justify the most massive electronic surveillance system imaginable. This international e-spying is intertwined with our domestic systems, and it's going to take a lot of political willpower to have any real separation between the two. Should we be collecting the Facebook data of citizens in Holland? I think not.

I'm saying this kind of simply because I'm trying to keep the big picture and not get mired in details. Because really this is a question of what we want our country to be, and what we want our place in the world to be. It's a critical question that Snowden has suddenly drawn our attention to.

We should have control over what the govt does in our name internationally, I'm sure you'd agree, & supposedly that is through Congress. But obviously congress is complicit in "over-reach" or is otherwise negligent in this. They operate as though they have the will of the people, but the majority of Americans have no idea how the system works--technically or legally--or why they should be worried about it. (All they hear is "9-11", and the govt can do anything). Snowden wants people to know the truth about what their tax dollars are funding. To a large extent the PTB have taken advantage of the average person's ignorance in the electronic revolution. They exploit us in every other way--do you trust them not to exploit us in this way?

This is how I see it:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/why-we-spy

"...terrorism simply isn't the kind of danger that could merit the level of response America devotes to it. Unless terrorists get nuclear weapons, he says, they really can't do much damage in America:

Conventional terrorism—even of the sort suffered on 9/11—is not a serious threat to the U.S. economy, the American way of life, or even the personal security of the overwhelming majority of Americans, because al Qaeda and its cousins are neither powerful nor skillful enough to do as much damage as they might like.

He adds that "post-9/11 terrorist plots have been mostly lame and inept, and Americans are at far greater risk from car accidents, bathtub mishaps, and a host of other undramatic dangers than they are from 'jihadi terrorism.'" He uses the Boston bombing in April as a case in point, describing it as tragic but less lethal than the factory explosion that took place that same week down in Texas.

Mr Yglesias and Mr Walt are right: conventional terrorism poses no major threat to America or to its citizens. But that's not really what it aims to do. Terrorism is basically a political communications strategy. The chief threat it poses is not to the lives of American citizens but to the direction of American policy and the electoral prospects of American politicians. A major strike in America by a jihadist terrorist group in 2012 would have done little damage to America, but it could have posed a serious problem for Barack Obama's re-election campaign. For the president the war on terror is what the Vietnam War was to Lyndon Johnson: a vast, tragic distraction in which he must be seen to be winning, lest the domestic agenda he really cares about (health-care, financial reform, climate-change mitigation, immigration reform, gun control, inequality) be derailed. It's no surprise that he has given the surveillance state whatever it says it needs to prevent a major terrorist attack.

In a perfect world, as Mr Walt argues, we in the public wouldn't let terrorist strikes dictate our politics. But we're not likely to get calmer about terrorism, because too many people are trying to keep us frantic. At least three parties stand to gain from exaggerating, rather than minimizing, our reactions to terrorist strikes. The first is the media, which wins viewership by whipping up anxiety over terrorist strikes. The second is politicians seeking partisan advantage, since panic over foreign-backed terrorism tends to increase voter turnout. (In Israel terrorism shifts voter support to the right. In America throughout the early 2000s, anxiety over terrorism increased support for president George W. Bush, but by 2008 an attack would have increased support for Mr Obama. Similarly, Spanish voters punished the conservative government for the Madrid train bombings in 2004 because 80% of the public had opposed the government's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Either way, when terrorists attack, one party or the other is going to make political hay out of it." (more at link)

[hobbit709]

18. When haven't the Big 3 been spying on each other? More faux poutrage.

[avaistheone1]

19. Your making a mountain of what is not even a mole hill is really getting old.

* yawn *

[baldguy]

25. I don't think it's news that we spy on Russia & China.

[mzmolly]

27. It used to be that people like him were considered traitors and spies.

How times have changed.

[still_one]

31. It still is, and by saying that we are aware of changes in Russian system of spying, is the tipping

point. Also, China is now demanding that we explain what we are doing.

He will now need to find a new country, and I have no doubt Russia or China will have open arms for him

[mzmolly]

54. I hope he'll enjoy

his new home, abroad.

[Savannahmann]

33. I don't care what you call him.

The operative question is this. Is the NSA spying on all of us? The answer is yes. Is the NSA reading diplomatic messages? Yes. Is the NSA so determined to read everyone's mail that they would risk the nation at war if it ever got out? Yes. Did we have a chance to stop it when Obama got into office? Yes. Did we lift one damn finger to start acting in a moral and ethical manner? No.

So if the missiles fly, you can blame the messenger, but history has shown that shooting the messenger gets you better news, but often inaccurate to say the least news.

[mzmolly]

40. Is the NSA spying on me? No.

Is the NSA spying on my Schizophrenic Mom? She likely believes they are.

Has the US government had spying operations in effect against various countries, for decades? Yep. .. Why is that news?

[still_one]

66. Yes it is and he intentionally or unintentionally has changed the message. Maybe I am wrong, but by

Focusing on other spying things, I believe the original message, domestic spying will be lost

[riqster]

37. The "Weft, Twue Weft" have no time for such quibbles

No, they have their wish; a scandal with which they can render Obama ineffective, thus "proving" that only a hard left Prexy can be effective, blahblahblah.

Treason? Not important. Feeding the poor? Meh. No, this is the frustration of a marginalized group spilling over, and doing who-knows-how-much damage before it's done.

And the worst of it is, these fools are dancing on the strings of Rovian puppeteers, helping to elect another god-damned Reep in 2016.

[mzmolly]

50. It's crazy.

I hope those offended at this "new" spying program, will study history.

I've never been wild about the Patriot Act, and I've not been under the illusion that it ended when Obama took office. As I understand it, the President does have judicial oversight, which was not the case for W?

[riqster]

53. IIRC, judicial oversight came along towards the end of

...the Bush Occupation. Not sure, though.

[mzmolly]

59. It's complex

from what I'm reading. What some consider oversight, others do not. Imagine that!

[riqster]

68. Disagreement?

Perish the thought!

[leftynyc]

58. Unfortunately for the rest of us

The vast majority of Americans consider the far left a joke and there isn't one candidate out there that could be described as far left that has a prayer of getting elected nationwide. They're the mirror image of the teabaggers and now they are applauding the crippling of the administration. I'm sure when the senate goes to pub hands in 2014, they'll be dancing in the streets for making it happen.

[riqster]

69. No, they will not accept responsibility.

Just like in 2000 and 2010.

[leftynyc]

71. I'm too old to expect

to be satisfied by any administration. I'm also old enough to know there is a vast difference between the parties (contrary to what the jerks among us like to think) and it really does always matter who you vote for. Maybe they'll have to live through 12 years of republican rule like so many of us did under Reagan/Bush to know what that's like. Am I happy with Pres Obama at the moment? Not in the least. Would I rather have Mitt Romney (and those were the choices), absolutely not. I have nothing but contempt for third parties as I've seen zero evidence it has forced anyone to run to their left and wound up costing us an Al Gore presidency.

[riqster]

72. +1 nt

[treestar]

121. +1

[blue neen]

65. That was so beautifully put.

I wish it was possible to recommend a post.

They have complained about this President for so long that anything they say now has no credibility.

[redqueen]

84. Thank you for this subthread.

It's a breath of fresh air.

[riqster]

87. Thanks back

I expected to be flamed for it: so far, my asbestos underwear has not been needed.

[redstatebluegirl]

102. I will loan you mine if you need it

I just bought some after my most recent post on this subject .

[riqster]

106. I'm thinking of upgrading to a union suit

Or maybe a set of flame-resistant Carrharts.

[redstatebluegirl]

108. Good idea!

I saw one of those hazmat suits the other day and it looked like a good option, head to toe protection from flames!

[sibelian]

88. Speaking of these soon-to-be-elected Republicans...

...do you want them monitoring your e-traffic?

[riqster]

90. Of course not

But until the law is changed, the monitoring will continue.

And if we allow more Reeps to take office, the monitoring will get worse, not better.

[Savannahmann]

30. OK, let me get this straight.

With everyone in the world knowing that The Zimmerman Telegram started the US Involvement in World War I, the obvious question remains. Who was to blame for that? Zimmerman who put the plan into action? Or Blinker Hall who decrypted it and gave it to the United States knowing that Wilson would have little choice but to publish it?

So who is to blame for harming our relationships with allies and nations we have to get along with? The NSA who is listening to everyone, including secure diplomatic communications in violation of a number of treaties on the issue, or Snowdon who told us about it? It's the action of doing the wrong thing, encouraging Mexico to go to war with the United States in the case of the Zimmerman Telegram, more than the public release that is the issue there. It proved that we could not trust the Germans, and that even while we were notionally neutral, and bending over backwards to try and negotiate a peace, the Germans were plotting against us. War was if not inevitable, then so close to it that a determined pacifist like Wilson felt he had no choice.

Now, Diplomatic Communications have been intercepted before, we had the Venona Project. And when it was ordered Shut Down, the CIA kept doing it anyway. Then when it was released, the Russians asked if we were still doing it, and we said No. We lied, again and again and again. So the lie gets exposed, and what happens? We blame a 29 year old idiot for starting World War III, or at least trying to. So how did we get here? Was it his decision to listen to diplomatic communications? Was he the one who decided that damn the consequences, we have to know what the Russians are saying so we can out negotiate them at the table?

Was he the one who spent months, or years, cracking the Russian Encryption? Was he the one who put the taps in place to intercept the messages? Did he give the orders? No, he just let the cat out of the bag. So the Zimmerman telegram started World War I for the Americans. It was a huge mistake to go to war with the Germans then, because the bad guy was Admiral Hall, because he told what the secret that nobody could know was.

Snowdon may be a douchebag, but he didn't do anything but let us know what the assholes in charge are doing, and that seems to be something that we should have known a long time ago, so that our elected officials could put a stop to it before we got on the brink of World War III.

[randome]

32. Yes, but did he need to say that the NSA is watching our thoughts form and then...

...run to Hong Kong in order to make this point?

He has ruined his life. For this?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Puzzledtraveller]

35. "Shall we play a game?"

[Progressive dog]

39. His first answer about the US Constitution removes all claim Snowden has

to being a whistle-blower. The other 95% of the world governments have not ever all been our friends. Even our closest allies have spied on us. Is this guy living in Orwell's 1984?
His claim to the high and righteous ground is indefensible.

[Monkie]

75. you missed part of that quote, by accident i presume?

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

[Progressive dog]

77. The Constitution has never applied anywhere other than the USA

You missed the part where I purposely ignored it rather than explaining how nation states work. You missed the part where I assumed that someone posting on a political web site would know this.
You missed the number of nations in the world with their own governments, and many with their own constitutions.

[Monkie]

83. but the DATA collected from foreigners by US companies is stored in the USA

when i sign up to google mail or hotmail from the EU my data is stored in the US, i am a customer of google in the EU, a foreigner, but the data is moved to the US, my property is in the US, because of that the US constitutional protections apply to my data and me just as much to you, that is what you are missing, or pretending to be ignorant about.
the same goes for any telecommunications, this is the point snowden makes, and you willfully ignore.

where in the US constitution does it say that it only applies to US citizens and foreigners have no protections at all?

[Progressive dog]

92. Are you making the argument that the US

is not entitled to spy on other nations if an American citizen lives there?
"where in the US constitution does it say that it only applies to US citizens and foreigners have no protections at all?"
This is easy and I'll make it simple. Other countries have their own laws. The constitution is a law. Our relationship to them is defined in treaties. Honoring those treaties is all that is required.
Who do we have a treaty with that grants rights of citizenship to every one in the world? Who do we have a treaty with that grants rights of citizenship to any other country?
Where in the constitution do you see that Hong Kong Eddie got to reinterpret the established meaning of the constitution.

[Monkie]

95. you cant really be this stupid, i was very clear in what i said, should i draw diagrams?

the point that was made is that foreigners are afforded the same protections in the constitution as US citizens are.
it is really that simple,what snowden said in that instance has nothing to do with other countries.

[Progressive dog]

97. Temper, temper and you are wrong.

They are only afforded most of those protections while on US territory, not in Hong Kong.

[Monkie]

100. why bring hong kong into this? nobody was talking about spying in hong kong

the issue was my data being on US soil and being spied on by the US government and snowden saying that the constitution protects all human beings that fall under US law equally, regardless of race/creed/colour/nationality.
the issue of the US spying on me outside of the US is a seperate issue, this is where the US breaks the laws of the country i live in and EU law.

[Progressive dog]

109. Obviously Snowden brought Hong Kong into this by fleeing to there

The US may or may not be sweeping up data on international cables. You do know that every bit of your e-mail has a header showing origin and destination.
There is no evidence from Snowden or his protected buddy that the US broke it's own laws. If NSA had been British,
then Britain could have stopped publication. So it's all right to publish American but not British secrets in Britain. In Britain laws on this are much more stringent. That's the way this government thing works, we get our own laws and enforce them in our own countries. We make treaties with other countries, singularly and in groups and in the US they become the law of the land.
The US may have broken laws of many other countries, but as long as they do it in the US it is not a crime and I for one don't care. They do it all the time to us.
"the constitution protects all human beings that fall under US law equally, regardless of race/creed/colour/nationality"

Except for nationality this is true and it is mostly true even for foreigners. You must be in US territory (where US is Sovereign) to be under the protection of the US Constitution.

[Monkie]

111. i was specifically addressing your statement and my data being held on US servers

you can twist and turn but who are you convincing?
you made a statement about the US constitution and foreigners, and i showed you why the US constitution can sometimes apply to foreigners even if the foreigner is not in the US.
this has nothing to do with sweeping up data on international cables!

when i sign up for google mail IN EUROPE, google then transfers my data, without me having a choice in the matter, onto its servers on US soil, once the data is on googles servers on US soil the US constitution applies.
again, i offer to draw a picture for you if you lack the capacity to understand and you are not just twisting words in a attempt not to look like a idiot.

its simple, and the rest of your spinning and twisting has nothing to do with the point i was making, is a separate discussion, you know this, i know this, so i am done here.

[Progressive dog]

113. I don't care, you have your laws, we have ours

All you have to do is not e-mail to the states and no one will be able to look. You could use the postal service and no one will look. You are on foreign soil, so you are subject to their laws, not the laws of the US. You may not like it, but it is the way it works. The Google servers (or similar servers) were used by actual terrorists as their preferred means of communication, according to the US government.
Complain to Google but don't pretend that the US constitution protects people outside of US jurisdiction, it never has.

[TransitJohn]

85. Yes it has.

No matter where in the world I happen to be, the United States recognizes my Constitutional rights. Try again.

[Progressive dog]

93. Tell that to the foreign government when you break the law

The US recognizes your constitutional rights when you are known to be American and unless you are actively aiding American enemies.
Hong Kong Eddie made the idiotic blanket statement that the US government should not spy on foreigners. Now this "patriot whistle-blower" with no morality is leaking to the Russian government.

[TransitJohn]

115. Your user name killed irony. eom

n/t

[Progressive dog]

116. cute, nt

[railsback]

41. OMG. Snowden reveals U.S. spying on Russia!

He's a hero!

[graham4anything]

42. no, just for the repubs to win the 25th of June in Mass, and Oct. in NJ and they win the senate 14.

then Paul Ryan/and Eric Cantor will be President/VP in 2015 and change all the laws creating mischief until the 2016 election.

They can do a lot of damage in one year.(after all, look how dreadful Gerald Ford was in only a few months).

[Cleita]

44. We've been spying on Russia since I was a child and they have been spying on us.

It's no big deal. What is a big deal is why this ordinary citizen was allowed to have secrets and why a private company was allowed to have them? He is really not to blame any more than Bradley Manning. It's the higher ups who initiate the policies that they are trying to cover up with secrecy who are at fault and should be brought up for investigation and review, however, it will be low level whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning who will be crucified and frankly policy won't change.

[Mojorabbit]

52. No. WW3, if it starts will prob be Syria

Both sides sending in arms. Proxy war which could get out of hand. The revelation that we are spying on Russia is a non event. I am almost 60 and we have been doing that for as long as I have been alive.

[Fire Walk With Me]

55. Sorry, but I thought DU agreed he was a clown or something.

He's doing a PFC Manning, because there are crimes to be exposed, without the benefit of being easily caught and stuck in solitary confinement for three years without a trial. Because the US government treats transparency (whistle-blowers) as anathema, despite Obama having said "Transparency...will be the touchstones of this administration."

[Kolesar]

80. He's a leaker, not a "whistle blower" and you forgot

...to include chained CPI into your post.

[Fire Walk With Me]

114. Your autosignature reads:

"Success is not about how much money you make, its the difference you make in people's lives -Michelle Obama"

I'd say Snowden has made a positive difference in the lives of every American who doesn't want to be spied upon by an increasingly authoritarian surveillance state, one based upon neocon/Bush family initiatives.

[Kolesar]

118. I reckon that you never donated to or knocked on one door for President Obama

Or Kerry, or Dean, or Hillary Clinton
Say hello to your friends on the Libertarian message boards today, ok?

[Fire Walk With Me]

119. Attack me instead of my position? Nice. ASSume I'm a fucking libertarian paulbot? Worse.

I voted for Obama. Then he used or allowed domestic terrorism against Occupy for well over a year, and aids and protects those who nearly destroyed our economy in 2008. He also signed section 1021 of the NDAA, twice, which provides for the indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation, allows the neocon/Bush surveillance state to prosper...we've lost the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments during his watch. I didn't leave the democratic party or Obama. They left me, in a most visceral manner.

Have nice day, and work on your scrying skills a bit before posting from now on, all right?

[Progressive dog]

112. Military justice is different

Snowden would get a regular civilian trial, if it came to that. The three NSA (whistle-blowers or whatever) that are jumping on the bandwagon spent little or no time in jail. I think one pleaded to a misdemeanor. None of them fled the country.
If true, the treatment of Manning by the military justice system is indefensible but Snowden would have faced civilian courts.

[MjolnirTime]

64. He's a wounded animal. It will get worse as he nears his fate.

[boilerbabe]

74. you are obsessed with this guy. oh yeah, that's right he is gay and you have a problem with that. nt

[Kolesar]

79. You're just making shit up and posting it on the internet

You are the one who brought "gay" into the discussion, not pnwmom. Apologize

[FSogol]

76. He's starting the Rand Paul for President 2016 campaign.

I wonder if he'll return to the States in time to campaign for Paul?

[WinkyDink]

81. I'm pretty sure these countries' leaders know that we've all been spying on each other! Like FOREVER

Geez Louise, we've made MOVIES about it!

[Turbineguy]

89. Who's idea was it to farm out

intelligence gathering to private contractors?

[Harmony Blue]

91. No no no

that isn't important. What is important is finding out what is Snowden's favorite snack? This will determine what type of person he is and if we can trust him.

[MNBrewer]

117. Sounds more like the NSA is the one doing the trying

and spying

[leveymg]

120. Just call 007 and Adelle. They've always saved us from these dastardly plots.

[LeftishBrit]

122. Of course not.

And honestly, is it news that the USA and Russia spy on each other, and always did? The details may be a revelation, but hardly the basic fact.

The USA and UK spy the hell out of each other (as shown by the recent revelations, but I would have assumed it anyway) and we have been allies for far longer.

If Stalin, Brezhnev, the McCarthyites, Ronnie Reagan, Maggie Thatcher, etc. etc. didn't get WW3 going over 45 years of Cold War, do you honestly think that Snowden is going to?!

[pnwmom]

123. We don't know what's in the thousands of documents that were stolen.

All we know is that Greenwald threatened that they would be very harmful.