I am getting the odd sense that some don't like Snowden because he made the establishment look bad

[The Straight Story]

Not because of what he did but because of how it makes our leaders look.

I remember Wikileaks and the cables from Yemen where they agreed to cover up US drone strikes that killed innocent people (by claiming they themselves did it via air strikes). Pretty serious stuff - especially considering the only answers we get are "Trust us, we can't tell you more, national security is at stake" etc.

That story got little traction. Now we have blatant examples of data mining US citizens (for their own good mind you) for no real reason and people are up in arms - and then being told they shouldn't be because it is all ok and really, it's legal.

Our government wants us to be transparent while they lock down more things using national security as a reason. They hound websites like Public Intelligence for releasing data they found on the web and continually say they need to operate in secret and above the law.

The thing is...they don't trust us. None of us. But they want us to trust them.

They want privacy - from their calls to emails. Remember the closed door meetings over health care? Don't tell me that was covered under national security. They don't want to be subject to the same scrutiny and laws they have for us.

When you have one party that has power that wants to be as secret as possible on the one hand and wants full access to you and your information on the other...well that sounds a little troublesome to me.

I'd love to know what big corp execs hammered out in meetings with our leaders. Nope. If I tried to listen in or find that information through a back door I would be sent to gitmo. You can't tell me that the bankers talking to our leaders should be secret information. Where's the transcripts and call logs?

Mom always said: If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Perhaps instead of trying to make up something about why those opposed to Snowden feel that way....

you could try listening to what they themselves are saying.

[The Straight Story]

2. I tried, but there is never any audio, just a bunch of text

[bluestate10]

27. Smart ass answer. You know exactly what the poster was asking for.

Stand your ground and fight it out on facts. I see people blaming Obama from grounding Morales' plane. How did those people arrive at that certainty, in their minds? Information about meta data was out years ago. Why didn't you and your ilk wail year ago? Snowden is a person that has played fast and loose with the truth. Yet your ilk consider him more credible than the government? Who are you to make such a conclusion? The government CAN'T release information that would show Snowden up as a poser because release of that information would be a crime. So Snowden is left to punch away and release selective information that can easily be refuted, if breaking the law like Snowden has is the path taken.

[The Straight Story]

36. Heh. Ilk. Nice use of the word.

I have been complaining for years about such things. I have posted more than my fair share of things from Public Intelligence and the like (don't recall seeing you around those threads).

Why so upset now that it is finally in the spotlight and getting press?

I have also posted transcripts from the NSA showing that they don't think the laws as written should apply to their job.

Now that it is all out there and being discussed like it should have been before folks are upset and want it to go away and blame snowden for what our government is doing.

Take this opportunity to hammer away at those who want to spy on you and violate your rights. Unless, of course, you are fine with any president having that ability. Bet if Romney was in you wouldn't be so passive about it.

[tex-wyo-dem]

68. "Bet if Romney was in you wouldn't be so passive about it."

Exactly!

[tridim]

152. Romney is not in, Obama is, and he is the most honest politician in modern history.

What the fuck does Romney have to do with ANYTHING?

It's pathetic, and not DU.

[raindaddy]

154. You're joking right?

If he were really honest why didn't he just admit he was going to fill his administration with Bush retreads and corporate hacks? He could've run on cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Campaigned on secret trade agreements and creating the most comprehensive violation of privacy the world has ever seen.
"I'm going to be soft on Wall Street and and extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich..."

Just curious how many Democrats on this thread would've voted for that?

Obama could've been really honest and ran as a moderate republican. Then we could've elected a real Democrat.

[Ed Suspicious]

157. You know we will have shitty presidents after Obama, right? The precedents the good ones make

are adhered to and expanded by the bad ones.

[rhett o rick]

43. This is a war between the 1% and the 99%. Which side do you choose? You wont say will you? nm

[warrant46]

95. No they won't

But their comments speak loudly to where they are coming from and going to---

[Jakes Progress]

71. "fast and loose with the truth"

That would be this administration. Continuing in our single party system of government. Obama is lying. bush lied. Clinton Lied. bush lied.

If you have no problem with that, that is your prerogative. But don't tell us why we re upset. We have a problem with it...regardless of who does it how how hot the guy doing the duck and cover is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. Nixon Lied....Kennedy Lied

About the only one that hasnt is maybe Jimmy Carter....

You were expecting perfection?

[Jakes Progress]

172. Never said that I did.

But there are many here who see perfection where it does not exist. That makes it easier for the right wing to get what they want when their agenda is allowed (or championed) by an administration that former liberals refuse to condemn regardless of what it does.

[A Simple Game]

121. I guess I'm one of the ilk you apparently find disgusting. I like that stand your ground

and fight it out on the facts part though. Great idea! Too bad it's too late for President Obama to do that as part of his most transparent President campaign. He could have kept the leak to a minimum and looked like a hero at the same time.

All he had to do early on was offer Snowden amnesty for not releasing any more information. In exchange he could have offered a promise for a national discussion on the programs in place and why they were needed. Place all of the facts safe for public consumption on the table and let the nation have a discussion about the need for security vs the need for privacy. Perhaps alternatives could have been found that would provide both at the same time.

A President that wasn't so busy playing multidimensional chess may have thought of that. Then again maybe as a constitutional scholar he was afraid the laws constitutionality would be brought into question.

We do now know one thing, the information Snowden has released has done far less damage than the administrations reaction to the release. The administration is doing far more damage to the US reputation than Snowden has.

[nashville_brook]

5. you could enlighten us.

[CakeGrrl]

18. That would involve an honest discussion rather than an

invitation to a bash session.

That accusation has been leveled EVERY TIME something occurs. This situation is just the latest excuse to trot it out.

Anyone who doesn't think that the government is 100% at fault is accused of not being able to bear "the truth"***

Witness the posts below.



***"truth" = speculation that the government is responsible for most everything.



People can root for Snowden all the way to his destination, but he broke the law and the DOJ will not just block it out as his supporters do.

Why is it so hard for some to grasp that there are actually people who think he should go to jail for stealing data?

Because if he can be exempt, why should ANYONE be held to account for their crimes?

[JDPriestly]

72. It comes down to how much you value democracy, representative government. I value it greatly.

I value democracy, representative government, participatory government so much that I volunteer in political campaigns, I discuss politics with my neighbors and friends and family, and I read and post on DU to keep up with political developments. I devote a lot of time to democracy and to participating in what I have always thought was the democracy in which I live.

So once you decide how much you value democracy, it comes down to what you believe is necessary in a society in order to have a democracy.

For me, we need a free press, near absolute freedom of expression (right up to the point at which the only expression that should be barred is expression that makes democracy and the expression by others of their ideas impossible), freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to petition government and a government that answers to all the people and not just the wealthy, the well connected.

For me, a democratic, a representative government answers to the people. It does not manipulate the people. It does not indulge in psy-ops, influencing the people with psychological tricks. It does not require the people to use ID cards made with technology that uses biological markers like DNA or a photo of the singular eye of the card-holder.

When I was a child, I was told that our Forefathers fought and worked and wrote the Constitution so that we would live in a democracy, so that we would have and participate in representative government and so that certain rights we be guaranteed to us to insure that we could live in democracy.

This surveillance program is incompatible with democracy because it makes a free press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and all our other freedoms impossible.

It makes a joke of representative government, since under this surveillance program we cannot, without the government's knowledge, communicate with each other or learn news that the government might not approve.

Further, once the government has collected our metadata, knows the names of the people we communicate with, the organizations we belong to, the books we buy or borrow, etc. the government, regardless which party is in charge, can classify us, and most important, if it sees what websites we visit, it can categorize us by our interests.

Once it has that and similar information, it can influence us. It can make sure that we are contacted by people who have links to the organizations, religious, social, professional, that are important to us. It can make sure that we will be exposed to the information it wants us to have.

In fact, I have wondered, here on DU, whether one or maybe more of the people who post a lot and always feed us with information, very elaborate and well organized information that is extremely, unusually and always favorable about, flattering to, our current government are employed by someone, maybe the government, to influence us, to do psy-ops on us on DU.

It may just be coincidence, but, is it possible that a real person would always, always, always be able to think up reasons, arguments for us to side with the Obama administration? A person who genuinely thinks for him or herself is, in my opinion bound on occasion, at least once in a while, to disagree with Obama on something no matter how much they support Obama.

I strongly object to this surveillance program. It is not compatible with democracy or representative government.

It is also not compatible with human rights. The minute that our government places us under surveillance we are not free to say or think what we really say or think.

This program enables the government to manipulate and influence us -- inevitably. If the government is not yet actively influencing and manipulating us, sooner or later it will.

This surveillance takes away our freedom.

In my view, for that reason, it is unconstitutional.

If you think I am wrong or exaggerating, think a little harder.

A reporter whose phone records, whose metadata is collected by the government cannot make a call to talk to a source without the government knowing that the communication is taking place.

A troubled soul cannot call his pastor or his doctor's office with the government finding out that call took place.

An abused wife cannot call an attorney for advice without the government knowing about it.

This surveillance deprives us of our freedom and enables our government to influence us. That is not democracy.

So that is why I am grateful to Snowden for letting us know that this program is taking place.

Punishing Snowden would mean the government is telling the American people that the American people do not even have the right to discuss this surveillance program, much less criticize it.

Obama has said we should have a discussion about surveillance, but he wants to punish the person who began this discussion. That makes no sense.

Again, there is somehow a contradiction between claiming that you encourage discussion on a topic and then trying to arrest the very person who started the conversation.

We live in dangerous times. Surveillance is a dangerous development.

[TM99]

84. Beautifully stated!

I agree with what you wrote 110%.

Thank you.

[JDPriestly]

85. Thank you. We freedom-lovers have to stick together.

But most who support this program lack the attention-span to read my long posts.

[TM99]

87. We do, even when called 'libertarians'.

I honestly don't think they lack the attention-span. I think they just don't want to face the truths that require more than a few catch-phrase words or pithy blue links to encapsulate.

[nenagh]

86. Many thanks... I agree with you entirely.

once our metadata is known, we are persuadable.. although few enough will admit to that fact.

[CakeGrrl]

93. Well, this was more subtly stated than the usual

"If you disagree, you're stupid", but I did catch it.

Your position is clear from your original assertion.

Sorry, but one can't steal information, flee to a foreigm country with said stolen information, then tell a foreign newspaper they took a job to which they were entrusted with the express purpose of theft.

How much anarchy is permissible? If the cover story sounds noble enough, how many laws should be suspended? And for whom?

The problem in front of those who think others are protecting the government by believing that Snowden should be tried for the laws he broke is their (your) inability to see how some of us can hold that position yet agree on the point of having a long overdue dialogue about surveillance.

Snowden took the wrong approach. Sharing data with nations known for spying is beyond the bounds of nobly exposing the domestic surveillance that he did not, by the way, discover anew.

As evidenced by his limited options, his actions are not seen as an act of heroism to be rewarded. The key motivator in the asylum offers he's received are to spite the U.S. That's telling.

[Fumesucker]

94. The M$M would sooner be bastinadoed than talk about policy, particularly in respect to surveillance

As soon as Snowden is taken out of circulation in one way or another the M$M will drop the entire surveillance issue like a plutonium potato.

Snowden being on the loose is the only thing keeping this in the public eye.

[malokvale77]

104. Bingo

[LiberalLovinLug]

116. The law

In Alabama, one can go to jail for a year if you are caught with one marijuana joint. That's the law.

Personally, if I heard of a sentence like this to some young person I would be more concerned with the damage done to that young person (criminal record...criminal influences in prison...etc) and the over-reach of the State than the singular focus on the fact he "broke the law" and must pay the price.

[JDPriestly]

130. As I see it, Booz Allen and the government stole our information.

Snowden just told us that they were stealing it.

Snowden did not take anything that didn't already belong to us, the people.

Remember.

Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Since we are the government, since we govern ourselves, who took our metadata? It is a small elite clique, a rogue group in our government that operates under the color of authority but that does not have legitimate authority. Why does this program lack authority?

Because once people understand what is happening and what the repercussions of this spying and collection of our metadata means for our self-determination, for our press, for our freedom of speech, religion and association among other freedoms, this spying will have no authority whatsoever. It is a program that operates under the color of law but is as illegal as police brutality.

Snowden has brought out the facts. It will probably take years, but the program's inevitable excesses and abuses will come to life and the people will take back their authority and end the program.

[marions ghost]

146. yes

++++ good post--they took what is not theirs --and the activity is "as illegal as police brutality"--agree.

But IMO we don't have years to take back our authority....people need to wake up.

[kentuck]

96. Bravo!

This should be a stand-alone post.

Great post!

[Aerows]

97. Don't even wonder about this

"In fact, I have wondered, here on DU, whether one or maybe more of the people who post a lot and always feed us with information, very elaborate and well organized information that is extremely, unusually and always favorable about, flattering to, our current government are employed by someone, maybe the government, to influence us, to do psy-ops on us on DU."

It is absolutely a fact. When HB Gary Federal got hacked, it was revealed that there were projects in the works to develop software to help a handful of people manage hundreds of identities at a time to post on the internet. I can't remember what it was called, but I'll dig up links if anyone is interested.

But don't *even* wonder if we are aggressively marketed to - we are, and it's not just the internet and it's not a new thing. It's absolutely wrong, and that is what sent me over the edge during the Bush Administration.

[JDPriestly]

106. Thanks.

[Blanks]

117. In the not to distant past government employees...

Carried all of our written correspondence from us to our loved ones, our banks, the utility companies etc.

They could have kept track of who we were writing to at any time when this was the primary method of communication. Did you not use the US Postal service? Do you think it was never abused? Were you upset that you had to turn these sealed envelopes over to a government employee?

I think you're getting a little carried away with some of your examples. Sure, we should always fight government over-stepping; particularly when it comes to invading our privacy, but there's a difference between the government being aware of who you're corresponding with and the government scrutinizing your correspondence.

Surely to goodness you don't let merchants manipulate you based on interests you've expressed in an online environment. That seems especially bizarre if you are aware that it's happening and their marketing methods are still successful.

[JDPriestly]

136. The government did not track our mail until recently.

That is the problem.

The government is over-stepping.

It is invading our privacy.

The government does not need to scrutinize the contents of our correspondence because with computers, it can apply mathematical formulas to analyze the lists of e-mail addresses with whcih we correspond, the phone numbers we call, the "friends" we have on Facebook, etc. and categorize us and then feed us information that will influence us according to who we are, what category we fit in. And if we are journalists or lawyers or scientists, the government can collect lists of our contacts from all our electronic sources and also the contents of all our communications by merely applying to the FISA court which is entirely overseen by Chief Justice Roberts -- entirely.

The government can, because of the data it can collect, blackmail people including its own employees, members of Congress, people serving in local government. Of course it won't need to bother to do that much because if it controls a few of the opinion-makers, it gets total control.
The gentle big brother, but nevertheless the big brother.

And the press, lawyers and others who have an obligation to represent and present positions that may be unpopular with the government will suffer the most.

I read in an article that was linked to from DU that scientists employed by a government agency were subjected to precisely the kind of deep surveillance that I am describing. Why? Because the government did not like the results that the scientists were disseminating from their work.

This is an extremely dangerous program.

It is not necessary to have a program of this magnitude, secrecy and depth in order to obtain pen registers in specific criminal investigations or to obtain the records of terrorists.

This program is aimed at the control through surveillance and social mapping or American citizens. Are we a free people? Not as long as this program is in place.

[marions ghost]

147. simplistic thinking

--talk to somebody about the implications of electronic data-mining and analysis.

[Blanks]

160. That's sure to be it.

I'm just a simpleton because I pointed out that we've trusted the government for generations with our personal and professional correspondence. Obviously, I just don't get it. Since I'm not adequately outraged by the same things as all the cool kids; I'm just stupider.

That's ridiculous. We've been hearing about data mining for years. There have been movies made about it. I've programmed databases. The concept isn't that complex. It isn't that I'm ignorant of it; I'm waiting for the specific stories to determine how folks were damaged. So far all I've heard are horrific scenarios of possible abuses. In that respect the potential for abuse with the mail system is a perfect analogy. The ability to spy was always there. There are examples of rogue mail carriers who didn't properly do their job, it's a risk you take when you use the system.

The fact that data mining enables companies to manipulate consumers is not a problem of government over-reach because 'consumers' are using the telecom system. Would you give up the right to use their service to protect your privacy? Then go ahead and do it.

If you have some specific action that I should take that shows that we are taking a stand against government over-reach, tell me what it is. I'll gladly join in with anyone who has a plan to rein in the government, but I don't really think whining about it day in and day out is accomplishing much. Unless giving people the impression that the sky is falling gives you a sense of accomplishment.

[marions ghost]

171. No need

to bother your beautiful mind with all this negative stuff about the corporatocracy that is monitoring us not only for our consumer preferences, but for everything else we do and think through the NSA.

If you don't even accept that the corporations ARE the government in America, I would suggest that you get up to speed on that. Then you will understand how insidious and outrageous this data mining is. How it is all intertwined. Talking about these issues is the first step to doing something. I'm sure you know that.

Or just go back to The Kardashians and fuggettabout it. Let others do the heavy lifting.

[Blanks]

174. Who are the Kardashians?

This is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about.

You're going to try to shame me because I'm not running around whining and pissing and moaning about how the president isn't doing his job.

Everyone has their pet issues. I can see 10% or even as much as 25% of the discussion being about these security issues, but if a person just pops in here and checks out the greatest threads occasionally its more like 75% of the discussion is about the NSA (the rest going toward Zimmerman).

Granted, you see me discussing it too. The point is that while this is a big issue, as long as we are talking about it we are not talking about other things.

Sure, talking about it is the first step. How about moving on to step two or at least make a part of step one talking about what step two should look like.

If step two is get rid of the democrats (which is where a lot of these discussions seem to be heading) I think this is the wrong place to conduct that kind if planning.

I believe we have an infestation of folks who are keeping the discussion away from every day issues. Maybe you are one of those folks.

[marions ghost]

175. Trust me--this is an everyday issue

and it will be for the next few years. But there are a lot of people running around who'd rather see us not talking about it--maybe you are one of those?

I'm supporting Democrats who deal constructively and directly with the NSA issue from now on. It's definitely a deal breaker. If they follow the hard line on this and then they are either too stupid about the implications, or they really don't have the people's interests in mind--and those Dems are not worth supporting. Because this is about basic rights under the constitution.

That goes for Hillary, Biden and whoever else runs for president in the future (leaving Obama out of this--unless he suddenly turns around and surprises us all). I will be looking for candidates to support among those who have taken a strong stand against government surveillance.

Let DU be what it is. A lot of people here have an understanding about how this kind of data-mining erodes the rights and freedoms this country used to stand for. And how the opportunity for massive electronic intelligence gathering works to keep us all under a government microscope. It is unprecedented. There are serious dangers inherent in it. This is a major watershed moment for this country. Maybe if you don't try to tune out this discussion you could initiate a profitable discussion about what "step two" should look like.

Whining and complaining that "there's too much talk about this topic" seems intended to stifle the conversation. We've seen it around here before, when the going gets rough. Nothing new.
There's always the option to return to the Kardashians, (the Kardashians being whatever your favorite mindless diversion is).

[Blanks]

176. I appreciate your reasoned response, but...

I'm not trying to shut down the discussion. I believe that there are people keeping the discussion afloat with ulterior motives.

Obviously, the solution to solving this NSA issue is through controlling elections. We should have moved on to influencing congress members a long time ago. They can either agree to 'tighten up' on the NSA or face losing their seat. We are far enough out from November 2014 that if we stopped whining and started acting we could actually have some impact.

I expect with the exception of the 'paulbot infestation folks' everyone would get behind some kind of petition that holds our democratic representatives feet to the fire if they don't take a certain (as yet undetermined) action against the 'shadow government'.

With all of the discussion invested into this; I'm disgusted that someone isn't working toward something like that. That's what's so disappointing about the volume of discussion. It could go on for years like this and the situation would only get worse.

I can see someone starting a thread a day updating members on the battle for 'intelligence oversight legislation', but lately it isn't the Democratic Underground its the NSA Bitch Session Site.

I don't see this 'data mining' as something new. There has been a battle with the government over these privacy issues for as long as I can remember. It isn't going to be resolved even if we win every election, and every candidate that won promised he was going to 'do something about it'. I've never seen the world work that way. It's one of the reasons I didn't wholeheartedly support Obama in 2008. I've watched politics for long enough to know when someone is over-promising. I supported him strongly in 2012; I see that he has some grit. That's what I respect about him. However, he's got a split congress and the republican controlled house that has held votes to repeal Obamacare 37 times (last I heard).

Anyone that thinks anything is going to get headed in the right direction as long as we've got dickheads like that controlling one of the law making bodies in this country needs to wake up. The president needs our support to get this country going in the right direction. The makeup of the House of Representatives must change.

This NSA thing is not the only issue and regardless of how unpopular it makes me here: I don't believe it's the most important issue. You won't change my opinion on that regardless of how many times you talk down to me or accuse me of not understanding. The importance of it will fade over time when the emotion dies down and all that it will have accomplished is a lot of wasted time.

Watch and learn. It is the way of the world.

[marions ghost]

177. OK I get it...

Nanny says it's time to stop discussing this and move on

"The importance of it will fade over time..." you say.

--The importance of it will never fade. Whether we can do anything about it is a real open question. We the People will have to try, but the playing field is no longer level. If the government would do this extreme surveillance of us in secrecy, how do we trust the government in anything?

[Enthusiast]

126. 100% right on! Beautifully said.

And in conclusion, "We live in dangerous times. Surveillance is a dangerous development."

There is simply no justification for the size and scope of the surveillance. It is anti-democratic. Anyone that makes excuses for it instantly loses their credibility, imo.

[lordsummerisle]

143. JDPriestly

You are awesome, wish I could articulate 1/2 as well as you...

[Kurovski]

165. +1 (nt)

[rhett o rick]

105. "Because if he can be exempt, why should ANYONE be held to account for their crimes?"

I guess you dont see what's going on here. If one of the 99% break the law, the authoritarians go nutzo. They must be punished. But if our government breaks a law, it's ok because they have our best interest at heart.

We need to keep prospective. If someone breaks a law to expose a much bigger violation of the law, let's go after the biggest violator first.

[CakeGrrl]

167. More of the attempted condescension

People who disagree is not equivalent to "not seeing what is going on here"

What does seem to be going on is an increasing intolerance for and increasingly ugly reaction to differences of opinion.

WITHOUT PROOF, this evil, above-the-law, Mob-style, citizen-killing "establishment" boogeyman has been so built up and hyped as assumed truth, I'm surprised some here haven't gone off the grid or emigrated, so evil and unaccountable it's made out to be.

Where is the revolution?

When will those of you in such contempt of this US regime follow Egypt's example?

[xtraxritical]

118. I know of lot's of bankers that broke the law in a much more serious

way than Snowden did and there's not a whisper about it. Hopefully Snowden's escapade will help improve the "law".

[L0oniX]

120. LOL yep we bail out the criminal banksters but Snowden gets nothing. There's no real justice anymore

[JDPriestly]

137. Agreed.

Not recording deeds, transfers of ownership in the county offices? MERS?

Are you kidding me. And then they got off with a fine. They knew very well that they were breaking the law. They laugh at the law.

The law is for little people like Snowden who simply inform American citizens of the crimes of the government.

[fascisthunter]

149. upside down cake

[fascisthunter]

148. lol... we have

[galileoreloaded]

3. nah, just drones. nt

[HooptieWagon]

4. Thats pretty much it.

He made Obama look bad by exposing illegal surveillence. Then he made him look bad again by not being on Morales's plane.

[VanillaRhapsody]

6. So more putting words in their mouth?

edditted to add "your underwear are showing".

[kardonb]

51. Obama

he did NOT make our President look bad ! Check the FACTS , please . The plane had to land because they had trouble with their fuel gauge indicator . There is the voice record of the pilot asking for permission to land . Stop making up lies just to make Obama look bad .

[HooptieWagon]

57. fuel gauges don't register when no fuel.

At takeoff, the plane had clearance for overflight and a refueling stop. Would not be permitted to take off if not the case. After takeoff, that permission was simultaniously withdrawn by US request. Plane was unable to reach fuel stop without overflight of countries in flightpath. Plane was forced to circle, had to land when fuel was low. Pilot was merely communicating dire status of fuel situation to aircontrol.
France apologized to Bolivia. Why would they do that for a mechanical problem? Austria already pointed finger at US for forcing down plane and demanding inspection. And speaking of inspection, why would US demand inspection of a broken fuel gauge? Your argument is patently false. It was made last night and soundly de-bunked.

[JDPriestly]

80. The plane had to land because of a problem with the fuel gauge indicator

because it had flown all the way from Moscow to Vienna, had circled around and now needed to tank up a bit before heading out across the Atlantic Ocean. Once over the Atlantic Ocean it could not refuel. France, Italy and Spain and Portugal had all refused Morales the right to land and refuel or made his landing or refueling or even crossing into their air space contingent on allowing local authorities to search Morales plane which enjoyed diplomatic immunity because it was the official plane of the president of Bolivia.

This is confirmed because when Morales landed in Vienna, the American ambassador, Eacho I think his name is, called the Austrian Minister of the Interior and also wrote her saying that he wanted to extradite Snowden.

Snowden was either not on the plane or was not found on the plane. Morales has said that he did not allow an inspection. It is unclear whether perhaps there was an inspection.

Morales stayed in the Vienna airport for 13 hours. The problem with the fuel gauge I would guess was that it showed they were too low on fuel to make it across the Atlantic without refueling. I haven't seen any report that anything else was wrong with it. Have you? Link please if you have.

That is why the organization of South American governments passed a resolution asking for formal apologies from Italy, France, Portugal and Spain and condemning the violation of diplomatic immunity that took place.

So no one needs to make up lies to make Obama look bad. He looks like someone who violated a very old and standard treaty that is vital to peace in the world because it makes diplomacy possible.

Obama made himself look bad. Don't blame anyone else. This was a huge mistake, and our government should eat humble pie and apologize.

[Enthusiast]

127. Our government should eat humble pie and apologize.

Yes.

[JDPriestly]

138. Yes.

[woo me with science]

7. Actually, information access *should* be asymmetrical.

The people should have privacy, and the government should be transparent.

K&R

[The Straight Story]

9. Indeed. But I don't think they believe we employ them but the other way around

We serve them, we are the potential enemy.

One more the few control the many. In business and in government.

Businesses can get your credit reports, drug test you, dig into your past and let them or you can't work there.

The majority are controlled by the 1%, and when you bring to light their practices they go into defense mode and use any tools they have to discredit those that oppose their will.

If Romney were prez right now this all would be a no brainer here and other progressive places on the net.

When people choose sides in these issues I wish they would choose the side of the people and not some imaginary home team.

[bluestate10]

21. OK. Then, when we have another Oklahoma City or 9/11, and believe me, we will if your

ilk has it's way. Then, please STFU about what the government could have done to prevent the event. BTW, NO government in the history of the world has been "transparent". I expect my government to be ethical, and the Obama administration has been that, IMO. I don't view Snowden as ethical, as a matter of fact, he strikes me as the type that I, or any other balance minded person can't trust.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

30. Or another Bosten bombing?

Will that get it though to you that this boondoggle is not primarily aimed at terrorist?

[rhett o rick]

45. Death by terrorist is statistically zero compared to other causes of death. Yet

you are willing to give up the Constitution, give up our freedoms and liberties for the promise of safety. The fucking promise of safety. Those that will give up their freedom to the authoritarian state are a disgrace to our founders.

[Kurovski]

166. "If people are so afraid of dying, they'd be better off chasing down drunk drivers"...

is something a neighbor is given to saying.

[winter is coming]

33. We'll have another Oklahoma City or 9/11 whether or not we live in a security state.

It's a fantasy to believe government can keep us "safe" from all the wackos in the world.

[Lugnut]

55. +1,000 n/t

[go west young man]

46. You put STFU in your post (on DU of all places)

while at the same time proclaiming yourself "balanced minded" as you brand a very well known popular long term DU member and those that think like him as "ilk". Man your not gonna win many friends with that debating strategy.

[Enthusiast]

131. They said "please".

[woo me with science]

50. TERRA!

Snowden has shifty eyes!

They are attempting to normalize the step-by-step elimination of the Constitution.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981711

Don't entertain this garbage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981567

[mbperrin]

63. Why do you worry about these singular events when a MILLION Americans die

every three years from SMOKING?

50,000 a year killed by drunk drivers.

And so on.

If we gave an actual damn about American citizens and their lives, we'd get drunks off the road and tobacco off the market. But nope.
So please stop waving the bloody shirt about these occasional events that are statistical outliers. No one, government or otherwise, can stop a lone wolf like McVeigh. Period.

Meanwhile, the government is busy with a war on women, on minority voters, on Social Security, and I can't complain about that?

Jefferson was one of the founders of the current government, and he advocated revolution whenever a government becomes oppressive. He said it was the DUTY of the people to change any government, by force is need be, when it treads on the rights of the people. Guess what? As a slave owner, he wasn't exactly a perfect person, either. But his actions are what counted in forming the government. Snowden's actions count now.

If the answer is we can't criticize or expose moral wrongs committed by the government, what was the question?

[tex-wyo-dem]

78. +1000!

Let's not forget lack of health care as being on of the top killers of American citizens. Way more than any fabled terror attack.

[mbperrin]

103. Yes, and that's why single payer universal is STILL my top priority!

We're being outcompeted globally by companies whose workers' health needs are take care of, leaving them free to tend to business.

Here, we have people who would love to change jobs to do something they are better at, but can't, because of their insurance. We have entrepreneurs who would love to start up, but can't because of the expense of insurance.

Health is part of the infrastructure of a country, as surely as roads, bridges, and electric transmission lines, and we need to join the rest of the world in treating it as such.

[Enthusiast]

133. There are too many factions profiteering on our health care.

They have armies of lobbyists and boatloads of cash. The people have few spokespersons. But single payer it must be, one way or another.

[JDPriestly]

75. If you want safety, buy a house on a big lot and build a bunker on your property.

Keep it stocked with a year's supply of canned goods and water.

Lots of people did something similar when they were afraid of a nuclear attack.

You are more likely to die from smoking than from a terrorist attack -- second hand smoke also kills.

[Egalitarian Thug]

90. So, you would have no problem explaining how this would have stopped either

of those attacks?

Oh wait, that's right. It wouldn't have. In fact, in both of your cases the guilty were identified as suspicious by plain old investigation before the attacks and administrative incompetence combined with agency turf wars let them get away with carrying out their deeds.

You just get all twisted up when people are mean to your pretend boyfriend...

[JVS]

92. Frankly, I don't give a fuck. Those events happened even with government invasion of privacy.

[bobduca]

110. I'll take 'What a scaremonger would say' for $50

"911 911 911 911 if your ilk has it's way!!!"


That's right you win!

And regardless of if the NSA program is stopped or expands, after the "next 911" you and your ilk will gladly trade away more rights to whoever is in charge then, for sure.

Also you get a bonus $100 for a 2x fallacy combo!

AD-HOMINEM & APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

[L0oniX]

125. Careful ...I hear Conda Sleeza Rice is roaming around on DU.

[alarimer]

123. Except that all this spying has not stopped ANYTHING.

There is no evidence that it ever could.

Way to buy into the authoritarian, fear-mongering bullshit. "It's okay if it keeps us safe." That is a big IF.

[L0oniX]

124. I hear there's a possible mushroom cloud if we don't go to war right now.

"I don't view Snowden as ethical, as a matter of fact, he strikes me as the type that I, or any other balance minded person can't trust." OMG where to begin. So you trust our government? If I lied to my wife as much as this government has lied to us I wouldn't be married anymore ...but you go ahead and trust. Our government is ethical? Yea ok tell that to innocent drone victim families and all the Iraqis that had nothing to do with WMD's. No "balanced" person would give up liberty for the fear your "ilk" wants to promote ...you could be in a war over your own bullshit ....like the last time. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by a terrorist ...of any kind ...without any stinking NSA. BTW church is tomorrow.

[JDPriestly]

140. Bush had plenty of information to stop 9/11. It could have been prevented.

But Bush was vacationing when Condoleeza Rice read him the memo warning of planes flying into buildings.

It was not a lack of information that resulted in 9/11. It was a lack of attention by Bush to defending the country.

The huge quantity of metadata that our government is processing will not help find terrorists. It will just confuse those whose job it is to find the terrorists.

I view Snowden as brave and ethical.

He is merely telling us that what is supposed to our REPRESENTATIVE government is not answering to us but is building a scaffold of spying on us that will give it total control over our thoughts and lives.

I do not oppose all government access to pen registers or their right to eavesdrop to solve crimes or true terrorism.

I oppose this massive and indiscriminate collection of pen registers.

This violates not just the Fourth Amendment but chills speech and the exercise of freedom of religion, freedom of association and a number of other rights that the government should not be taking from us.

There is nothing balanced about the government collecting your metadata. It gives the upper hand to the government and makes you nothing.

[JDPriestly]

139. I agree.

[Marr]

8. When people start demonizing the Bolivian president, not for anything he actually did, but

because he was bullied by our government and had the audacity to say as much, I don't see how you can draw any other conclusion. Some people are simply defending their team. Consistency, logic, principles... these things don't figure into it at all.

[AZ Progressive]

10. If these are truly Democrats that are saying that, then it shows that...

Democrats can be no better than Republicans at approving / looking the other way to the bad things that their party does.

[jazzimov]

15. His story stinks,

I haven't weighed in on his story as yet, but it just doesn't make sense. It also doesn't match what we have been told from other sources.

I won't make any statements yet, although I'm sure that the Bolivian President is "prevaricating". It just doesn't add up!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. You won't make any statements, but Morales is a liar

You are of course welcome to your opinion, but you can't claim that you're not yet weighing in on the matter while simultaneously saying you're certain he is a liar. You have now weighed in on the matter. Thanks.

[go west young man]

49. For his story not to be true it would have to be a stream of lucky

coincidences that all the European countries acted the way they did both during and after. European news reports have now shed plenty of light on the situations that took place. Yet you still want to believe it's all coincidental and Morales made it up? I'll have some of whatever your smoking please.

[Enthusiast]

135. We'll roll us a fattie.

[sibelian]

91. Any theory contradicting his story rapidly descends into obviously farcical nonsense.

But, you knew that.

[JDPriestly]

141. What Morales said agrees with what the Austrian and French sources say.

Don't rely on the American press for stories like this. American reporters are under the surveillance, i.e., the control of our government.

You can get English versions of foreign newspapers. Go read a Bolivian newspaper if you want to see this from their point of view.

[jazzimov]

11. I am truly sorry that you are getting that sense,

because it is totally WRONG, and indicates a predilection on your part.

If you actually read the documents "leaked" by Snowden as presented by Greenwald, you will find that the documents directly contradict everything that Greenwald claims that Snowden said - and Snowden doesn't contradict Greenwald.

This is not a "personal smear" against either of them - this is merely Journalism in it's rawest form. Whenever anyone is confronted with accusations, it is incumbent upon us to take both the accusation as well as the evidence apart to see if the evidence supports the accusations. In this case, the evidence presented directly contradicts the accusations made.

HOWEVER, we should have the discussion about "national security" again. Although the current has done nothing wrong legally, perhaps ii is time to relax the laws regarding surveillance and increase the laws protecting personal freedoms.

Although we - ALL of us - should understand exactly what our "personal freedoms" are.

And in the process please stop all this "Obama = Bush" nonsense. As John Lennon said in his song "Revolution";

"And if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
Nobody's gonna vote for you anyhow...."

[The Straight Story]

17. Nice try on that last part

The whole 'you are saying obama=bush' - The two may be worlds apart on many things, but on some they are not.

Why is it so hard to grasp, and why is it always wrong? Bush pushed through electric cars for the military because it could save cost on short trips at bases. Good idea. Obama could equal bush on that and I would be just fine with it. Bush's folks were ok with Solyndra, cool with me that Obama was as well.

On some national security things that I don't agree with they also share similar actions. If you can't understand that to be true than I don't know what to tell you. Facts are facts (unless you are a fundie that believes the world is only 6,000 years old.....).

I can discuss issues as an adult without waving pom poms or thinking that it is the end of the world if the guy I voted for is not perfect.

I damn well won't give someone a pass though just so I can feel better about my vote.

[JDPriestly]

156. I'm more concerned about what Obama admitted to than what is in the documents.

The government is collecting all our metadata.

That means they are collecting the metadata on all the sources that our journalists call or send or receive e-mails to or from.

It all started when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of new imaging instruments for cancer screening, despite some FDA scientists who thought that the machines produced excessive radiation. Five scientists blamed flaws in the review process, and began drafting complaints to other authorities, such as members of Congress and oversight committees. Worried that the employees were leaking information and undermining the FDA, officials began secret surveillance of the scientists’ government laptops, which they used both at work and at home. Spy software recorded keystrokes, snapped screen images, and copied personal e-mails and documents, including communications between the scientists and members of Congress, journalists, and lawyers.

Eric Lichtblau and Scott Shane reported on the FDA’s surveillance in the New York Times.

While federal agencies have broad discretion to monitor their employees’ computer use, the F.D.A. program may have crossed legal lines by grabbing and analyzing confidential information that is specifically protected under the law, including attorney-client communications, whistle-blower complaints to Congress and workplace grievances filed with the government.

Other administration officials were so concerned to learn of the F.D.A. operation that the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a governmentwide memo last month emphasizing that while the internal monitoring of employee communications was allowed, it could not be used under the law to intimidate whistle-blowers. Any monitoring must be done in ways that “do not interfere with or chill employees’ use of appropriate channels to disclose wrongdoing,” the memo said.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/07/18/fda-spied-on-dissenting-scientists-potentially-violating-federal-laws/

If you read the rest of the original article, you learn the snooping backfired because an outside contractor published the information they collected on the scientists online.

That's how we know about that very troubling abuse of the surveillance program.

This program is not good. The negatives way outweigh the positives, the losses way outweigh the gains.

[kentuck]

12. He makes the people look powerful...

and the big governments with their secret agents look weak and incompetent. The emperor has no clothes.

[Hydra]

13. I think that's totally it

And I think it's one leader in particular. Anything that happens, they have to rush to defend that person. "It couldn't be! It's misinformation! That person is a traitor! He has boxes in his garage!"

I think sadly, they mean well. They want that person to be the greatest success imaginable, a true first.

It's not going to happen. The person in question is going to be passed over by history as someone who decided to take the easy way, rather than the right one.

That sort of hope/desperation can't be dissuaded by general evidence. It has to run its course. Unfortunately.

[LittleBlue]

14. Pretty much. To some, Obama is their personal hero

Watching the great knight tumble off his horse at the hands of a stable boy is too much for them.

[bluestate10]

16. I don't like Snowden because he is a coward and a traitor. No one else, in the history

of this country that have forced meaningful change have hid from a fight. Snowden's history is sketchy at best. He has provable lies that he has made. Even with that, I may gain some respect for him if he came back and fought it out with the government, Snowden certainly won't be thrown into isolation, there is too much publicity for that. Snowden would be well lawyered, a bit foolishly, but well lawyered none the less.

[The Straight Story]

19. Given we have tortured people and put them in jails without charges and keep them there

I would not call someone a coward for leaving here anymore than I would have a soviet back in my day (and I played chess at the YMCA with more than a few that fled the soviet union and never thought of them as cowards).

Maybe you haven't been paying attention but the US is not exactly the model of freedom we once stood for in the world.

More people in prison here. Wars based on lies and oil. We kill innocent people with drones and people in countries we are not even at war with. We fund and arm just about any conflict we can and don't care about the body count.

The only cowards I see are the ones hiding behind a label of national security on everything and paying their way out of being prosecuted for crimes that an ordinary person would be in jail for.

[movonne]

47. You tell it just the way it is...we are not the same

country...thank you...

[mbperrin]

64. Thank you for saying it well.

"Fighting it out" with the current powers the government has given itself makes as much sense as stepping in front of a train to stop it.

We wouldn't say that person was brave - we'd say he was an idiot.

[HooptieWagon]

59. Some might define coward as someone who targets civillians with drones.

Others might call such a person a terrorist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

99. Mark Felt hid for over 30 years before he was revealed as Deep Throat

He got a crooked president to resign. He was no angel himself - convicted, ironically of searching homes without warrants, but pardoned by Reagan. I never saw people here saying "forgive Nixon, because the guy who ratted him out is a dubious character".

[GeorgeGist]

132. Apparently you've never heard of ...

the Boston Tea Party.

[hardcover]

20. Snowden took aim at President Obama on the international scene

He's a total jerk. As others here have stated, he made it about international spying and that makes him a traitor.
As for domestic surveillance I don't believe Obama is interested in my little world. He has to have some tools to work with to thwart terrorist attacks.

[KittyWampus]

22. you think leaking info to the Chinese & Russians is "making the establishment look bad"? LOL!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. Most emphatically, yes. n/t

[The Straight Story]

31. Keep waving that flag blindly. We didn't use to do so in last admin

But apparently some have America Fever now and can't see the forest for the trees.

Your privacy and rights could be violated day in and out and you would probably find a reason to support that.

How do you feel about leaks about Iraq back in the bush day? About the UK and our intelligence lying? Did you support such leaks back then? I am pretty sure we all did.....

[Democracyinkind]

89. It's disingenious anyway, as he has not exclusively shared anything with the chinese or russian gov.

Your thread just hit a nerve because it calls this issue for what it is.

[Blue_Roses]

23. he looks bad because he is being used as a doormat

for someone elses agenda...or either he really is that naive

[ZombieHorde]

24. That may be true for some folks, but mostly likely in my mind is

different people have different reasons, and most of them may have more than one reason.

The reason you cited is definitely a likely one for some, and I can't help but to wonder if the "factions" would be different if a Republican was President.

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. It's just the same sort of blind partisanship you see from Sean Hannity or some other Fox News type.

I truly did believe until very recently that liberals were better than that - that unlike Republicans they would put democratic principles, the common good and loyalty to the Constitution above narrow partisanship. And many do - but some are just Democratic versions of Fox and Friends.

[Skittles]

48. it will self-correct in 2016

count on it

[WillyT]

29. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[ProSense]

32. Snowden is a coward.

Snowden planned to commit this crime for a specific reason. He fled for a specific reason.

He intentionally planned to steal the information, making the decision even before he had access to the information. He then stole it and misrepresented the program and other details via Glenn Greenwald.

The entire Snowden incident has become an international tug of war by design. Snowden left the country intentionally to shift the focus. The goal was never a debate about the NSA. Snowden and Greenwald's goal was to embarrass the United States and the President and create an international incident.

Fleeing to Hong Kong didn't help his case: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023162351

NYT editor's blog: Snowden’s Questionable New Turn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023034825

What Kind Of Coward Is Edward Snowden?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023169023

If he gets asylum, he'll live his life hiding. If he returns to this country, he will be prosecuted.

[noise]

37. The government should let it go

This issue has been too divisive and serves only to distract the DOJ from focusing on more important matters. As a country we must move past this absurd notion of prosecuting Snowden.

[ProSense]

40. Not likely. n/t

[The Straight Story]

38. No, a coward is someone who kills kids using drones from thousands of miles away

on the orders of others.

[ProSense]

42. How about

"No, a coward is someone who kills kids using drones from thousands of miles away"

...bombs? Every President is a coward, huh?

Maybe President Obama should go into hiding so that Snowden fans can hail him as a hero.

[The Straight Story]

44. If you are bombing people not a threat to you. Yes. They call it something else when citizens do it

But once more those in power are not subject to the laws they want us to follow.

[go west young man]

53. Song for you courtesy of Roger Waters. "The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range"

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xe709c_roger-waters-the-bravery-of-being-o_music#.Udel3hbvKuQ

[HooptieWagon]

60. Others might call that state-sponsored terrorism. nt

[Apophis]

65. ...

I'm willing to bet you would not have called Snowden a coward if he revealed the NSA spy program during the Bush years. You would've called him a hero. Gods forbid if he revealed the NSA spying during Obama's presidency.

[LiberalLovinLug]

128. Strange definition of "coward"

"If he gets asylum, he'll live his life hiding. If he returns to this country, he will be prosecuted."

Let's see what should I do....risk living the rest of my life looking over my shoulder and/or rotting in a jail cell to expose NSA spying

or

fagetaboutit. I'll just sit in the basement front of my computer and hide behind my screen and rail on political message boards and trust that its all being handled through the proper channels somewhere.

[JDPriestly]

161. Is calling Snowden a coward just another psy-ops technique?

What does Snowden stand to gain from his revelations in your view?

From what I have read so far, he appears to have asked nothing other than asylum for the truths he brought to light.

I don't think he spoke up or published these documents for personal benefit.

Rather I think he is paying and will pay a tremendous price for his courage and honesty.

It will be a long time, maybe never, before he gets to bask in the glory of having opened the eyes of millions in the world to the surveillance to which we are subjected.

In fact, just to live, just to survive, he has to fade from the stage, leave everything he has ever known and retire to a very, very quiet life far from anyone who has ever known him.

He is at sea. He can know no one. He can trust no one. And that for a long time, maybe the rest of his life.

Meanwhile, you and I sit here in our comfortable chairs posting on the internet, living the good life until we die of natural causes. And quite possibly, we will eventually enjoy just maybe a tiny bit more privacy in our communications thanks to his revelations. We may gain, but Snowden will lose. He will be on the run, never to feel secure probably for the rest of his life.

And there may not be much left of that.

Snowden a coward? Really?

A "coward" who will never sleep a night without wondering who may have seen him during the day, who is coming for him, whether today he will be hunted down by our powerful state and our mighty, ubiquitous military.

Snowden will wonder perpetually to what sadistic police force in what remote country he will be secretly renditioned, to what kind of torture he will be subjected, what violent end he will meet.

Meanwhile you and I chat away, our every word, our every keystroke watched, collected, sorted and categorized by the voracious computers at Booz, Allen.

Now, who is the coward(s)?

For my part, I'm really grateful to Snowden for making the sacrifices he has made to let us know that our own government is Big Brother and is watching us, slicing and dicing our every communication, classifying our every call, ready to claim every word we write or speak any time it wishes.

[Octafish]

173. + Democracy

What JDPriestly wrote: That is that.

[fadedrose]

179. Makes sense to me...

What can he hope to gain?

[noise]

34. Wide scale surveillance

enables the government to curb dissent and intimidate the public.

Maybe the people upset with Snowden prefer only self serving leaks from government officials to pliant journalists.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. You got it right

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. Oooof. "The Establishment"

Groovy, man.



If all these counter-narratives weren't such childish libertarian gibberish, one might actually consider getting behind them from time to time.

[Cleita]

56. What's wrong with "The Establishment"? Yes, it's somewhat outdated but the

phrase is very accurate. Although I have to admit I prefer some older words and phrases like the aristocracy, royalty and the ownership class.

[Octafish]

41. Thank you for putting it into words, The Straight Story.

Carlyle Group owns spyhaus Booz Hamilton and somehow always, always ends up where the money is and bodies are.

[questionseverything]

81. speaking of security agencies.money and bodies

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2013/07/was-fiery-death-of-journalist-michael.html

[questionseverything]

82. end game

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6Fh3F6hufhDMGVjMUgxdXEwMzg/edit?pli=1

[allin99]

52. oh for sure, that's what's so creepy about.

[blkmusclmachine]

54. .

.

[pnwmom]

58. I don't like him because he has been actively interfering in foreign diplomacy

after stealing what he said were thousands of classified documents; and because he's been making repeated threats to release more.

If US internal surveillance is what matters the most to him, he sure isn't demonstrating that by his actions.

[mbperrin]

69. What diplomacy?

"Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."

The overthrow of a government at the behest of the United Fruit Company?

Is that what you call diplomacy?

[pnwmom]

70. He shared documents about our spying on China when Obama was meeting with

the Chinese to discuss their hacking, and he shared documents about spying on the former Prime Minister of Russia when Obama was meeting with Putin.

As if both China and Russia aren't spying on us.

[mbperrin]

102. Okay, so the Chinese and the Russians had NO idea that we were spying on them before Snowden, yet

THEY have been spying on us all along.

Don't you think that if they were spying on us that they knew from that we were spying on them?

China is one of our biggest trading partners, and Russia is becoming so.

Look, the only people that don't know about these things are us, the American people. These governments already knew all that. My tax dollars paid for all this spying, and I want to know what my money was spent on. You don't? Okay, stick your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalalalalalala.

Don't you ever get tired of being played for a sucker by your government?

[pnwmom]

162. Are you kidding me? The American people didn't know that we spy on China and Russia

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2013, 03:07 AM - Edit history (1)

till Snowden told us? The American people have never heard of the CIA? They didn't know they spy on China and Russia? Yes, they are our trading partners, but that doesn't mean we can or should trust them.

The devil is in the details. Yes, they knew we spy on them and the American people know we spy on them. But it is NOT helpful to provide them with the DETAILS of what we are interested in and what we are learning about them.

[mbperrin]

163. A 29 year old low level civilian contractor can access all that info

and the professional spies in China, Russia, Israel, and others can't?

Please.

Again, the only people in the dark are US citizens. I like to know what I'm paying for.

You prefer to be in the dark. OK. Let's leave it at that, shall we?

[pnwmom]

164. He wasn't low level. He had high levels of access in his last position

for which he received special training in computer hacking.

[mbperrin]

170. He's a 29 year old employee working for a private firm for a short time.

Either he had access or he hacked it - can't be both, please choose one.

And this "hacking" is really just enough computer knowledge to go places you're not supposed to, right? I mean, Q is not involved here.

But my point is that the Chinese, Russians, Israelis, and others have at least the level of knowledge he does, right? So they have all that info - he gave them nothing new.

Just me - I'm the only one who didn't know what was in the files.

Truth is, if we were mentally healthy as a world, we really wouldn't need secrets.

[Incitatus]

61. I'd imagine a lot less outrage here if Romney had won the election. nt

[ohheckyeah]

62. Trust them....sure.

We have been told that the data mining is legal because FISA says it is legal; however, FISA can say anything is legal if it suits the agenda.

I find it interesting how few who condemn Snowden showed up in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023178708

Think about it folks - a Republican appointed right wing judge appoints all of the FISA judges. They aren't approved by Congress or anyone else. The appointments are strictly the choice of Chief Justice Roberts.

To use its surveillance powers -- tapping phones or reading e-mails -- the federal government must ask permission of the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA judge can deny the request or force the government to limit the scope of its investigation. It’s the only plausible check in the system. Whether it actually checks government surveillance power or acts as a rubber stamp is up to whichever FISA judge presides that day.

The 11 FISA judges, chosen from throughout the federal bench for seven-year terms, are all appointed by the chief justice. In fact, every FISA judge currently serving was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who will continue making such appointments until he retires or dies. FISA judges don’t need confirmation -- by Congress or anyone else.

[snip]

“It really is up to these FISA judges to decide what the law means and what the NSA and FBI gets to do,” said Julian Sanchez, a privacy scholar at the Cato Institute. “So Roberts is single handedly choosing the people who get to decide how much surveillance we’re subject to.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/chief-justice-roberts-is-awesome-power-behind-fisa-court.html

And I'm supposed to feel better that FISA oversees what the NSA and FBI can do and who they can spy on?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

66. ding, ding, ding. . .the peon made the nobles looks like shit. Nobles want blood

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

[Th1onein]

67. Ya think?

[Uncle Joe]

73. This is an excellent OP.

The thing is...they don't trust us. None of us. But they want us to trust them.

They want privacy - from their calls to emails. Remember the closed door meetings over health care? Don't tell me that was covered under national security. They don't want to be subject to the same scrutiny and laws they have for us.

Thanks for the thread, The Straight Story.

[struggle4progress]

74. From an objective non-ideological PoV, who is Snowden actually helping?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

77. Many HATE him because he is a TRAITOR!

He took our secrets to a country that has been a long time adversary. He also BRAGED about it to a foreign news agency!

He deserves nothing but a jail cell!

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. You are assuming he has given secrets to foreign powers

when there is no evidence that he has done. What he did was talk to the media. You may not have wanted to hear his evidence that the US spies on all its citizens, and on millions of others too, but many of your fellow citizens did.

[L0oniX]

119. Bush & Cheney = much bigger fish ...peep ...pin drops

[DeSwiss]

79. K&R

''We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.'' ~George Orwell, 1984

[SleeplessinSoCal]

83. He doesn't seem to care about consequences. And with the responsibility he had, that should be

your number one priority. He crossed a line that Ellsberg never came close to. Ellsberg continues to protest into his golden years.

"Ellsberg was arrested, in November 2005, for violating a county ordinance for trespassing while protesting against George W. Bush's conduct of the Iraq War."

It's one thing to release details of NSA surveillance of Americans, which whether legal or not, is troubling and needs addressing at the source. But why we and other countries spy on each other has got to be very complex, reaching back decades. That is where he crossed a line into treason. And he appears determined to hurt the country/government as much as he can. He's another Libertarian putting his own ideals above everyone else.

[muriel_volestrangler]

101. What specific things has he said that you regard as treasonous? (nt)

[Democracyinkind]

88. "Our" establishment, not "the".

[cantbeserious]

98. + 100 - Well Said

eom

[felix_numinous]

107. Ha who knew

transparency meant WE were supposed to be the ones being transparent, while the 4th amendment only applies to those classsssified entities. Now it's clear.

[Autumn]

108. I am getting the odd sense that you hit the nail on the head.

and I am not a psychic. REC

[phleshdef]

109. I don't like Snowden because he is a far right wing hypocrite.

Snowden LOVED the big government national security apparatus when Bush was President, but when a black center left guy becomes President, he makes his way into classified information and then runs off to other countries to pass the information out like candy at Halloween.

If Snowden had went to Senator or Congressman who would be sympathetic to his so called concerns and did things the right way, I'd not have much I could say about it. But no, he went on foreign soil and launched an all out attack to make a name for himself. And then he turned around and gave those countries classified information regarding our counter-espionage efforts with said countries.

But prior to all that, he was pro-government secrecy and wanted leakers to be "shot in the balls" and wanted media outlets who reported anything resembling a leak to go bankrupt. So I don't buy into the notion that he gives one fuck about privacy or the 4th amendment or any of that. He did this to make the Obama administration look bad, simply because he didn't like who was President of it. He has no actual principles. He is right wing tool who played games with our foreign relations in order to hurt a President that he didn't like.

[rusty fender]

112. So you're ok with NSA spying on us, but are only mad because the public exposure of it makes Obama

look bad.

The worship of Obama is strong with this one.

[phleshdef]

113. Wow, the illiteracy is strong with this one ^

You obviously didn't read anything I said or you just failed to understand it. I said if Snowden has used the proper legal channels to air his so called concerns and hadn't went and sold out classified data to other countries, then I would be fine with it.

I believe these surveillance programs are too broad and need to be reigned in. But the difference between people like me and people like you and a lot of other foamy mouthed DUers is that I can say that without engaging in rampant hyperbole and acting like a manic little shit about it.

I don't worship anyone. Do I still like President Obama? Yes. Absolutely. Do I think he is on the wrong path by not reigning this stuff in? Yes. Absolutely.

Regardless of President Obama, I personally dislike Snowden for all the reasons I state in the previous post. He IS a right wing tool. He IS a hypocrite. He IS a criminal because of the way he handled this. So yea, I'm not gonna be making in any posts where I verbally twirl Snowden's dick around in my mouth anytime soon. I'll leave that for others. You'll live.

[rusty fender]

114. Illiteracy? Really?

I said if Snowden has used the proper legal channels to air his so called concerns and hadn't went and sold out classified data to other countries, then I would be fine with it.

You obviously don't know that "hadn't went" should be: "hadn't gone ". You made the same mistake in the post to which I initially responded, but I let it go.

And you obviously don't know that "if Snowden has used the proper legal channels" should be "if Snowden had used the proper legal channels".

And this:
I'm not gonna be making in any posts where I verbally twirl Snowden's dick around in my mouth anytime soon. I'll leave that for others. You'll live.

Who is really the "foamy mouthed" one?

[phleshdef]

115. Oh my, grahamar air ers!!!!

Ok, so instead of actually refuting anything I said, you played your grammar/spelling diversion coward card.

Now that we have that out of the way, are you actually able to refute any of the points I've made, or are you going to continue to hide behind asinine bullshit?

[Jamastiene]

111. TPTB have now become the overly jealous, domineering, controlling lover.

I don't know of any abuse therapists for that though. We cannot make them do anything. We can't reason with them to do anything different either. We could try to vote in different ones next time around, but the new ones would inherit a system that seems set in stone. They either adjust and adapt to it or don't get anything done. So their hands will be tied from the get-go anyhow.

I'm not quite sure what we can do to curtail the overly domineering rules we live under right now. I saw a real sign (in a post on DU) that said NO Fireworks for the 4th of July the other day. No pets. No coolers for something cool to drink to cool off. No nothing. Just sit there and sweat and be ready to be searched at any given moment. I don't think this is freedom any more. I seriously do not.

Even other than the obvious reasons (the loss of life), I wish 9/11 had never happened. How long after Pearl Harbor was bombed was the country in disarray and quite this bad as far as "for your own safety" special laws and rules go? Will the post 9/11 paranoia by TPTB ever settle down?

Good grief. Bin Laden is dead. What is the excuse for the paranoia now?

[alarimer]

122. Yes, because they are "our" leaders.

If Bush was still President, everyone here would be applauding Snowden. Seems we have a little "It's okay if you're a Democrat" problem.

[Iggo]

129. Gettin' there, are ya?

[Progressive dog]

134. Maybe because Snowden violated laws in a nation of laws

Criminals should face trial.

[cantbeserious]

144. Funny Thing Those Laws - Seems They Don't Apply To The 1% - But Do For The 99%

eom

[fascisthunter]

150. Perfect reply!

[Progressive dog]

168. You are off topic and wrong, the USA has special prisons for the wealthy

and they aren't empty.

[cantbeserious]

169. Thanks For The Scolding - I Needed That - We Will Have To Agree To Disagree

eom

[classof56]

142. That's not the reason I don't like Snowden.

Just so ya know.

[another_liberal]

145. Obama was better . . .

The simple fact is that Obama was a far better choice than either of the bastards the Republicans ran against him. In American politics you get two real choices, either Republican or Democrat (voting for a third party candidate is just wasting your vote). We chose the one who seems best, and we get what we get.

To expect the President we elect to be the exact kind of man we hope for is childish. To support our President unquestioningly is both lazy and stupid. I support President Obama when he deserves my support. I do not when he doesn't.

[Rex]

151. Easy

The PR firm will be in here to tell you how wrong you are any moment now...oh wait they already did.

[Summer Hathaway]

153. I'm getting the not-so-odd sense

that those who jumped on the Snowden-is-a-hero bandwagon are desperately trying to cover their leap-before-looking asses by clinging to the he made the establishment look bad meme.

[Cha]

159. Could be Summer.. who knows what produces these "odd feelings"

.. I don't think Snowden made anyone look bad but himself. Maybe Greenwald but he'll defend to the end of time that he always looks good.

[Cha]

158. I think Snowden is the one who makes himself look bad. So you

can count me out of your "odd feeling" accusation, Mr Straight Story(uh huh).

[jazzimov]

178. Then that tells me that you don't understand the issue at all

but you prefer to massage your own ego based on what you want to believe, rather than what is presented to you.

In other words, you have your own preconceived beliefs and it doesn't matter what facts are presented to you in the contrary.