Thought Experiment (IOW - I Haven't Thought It Out Yet):

[WillyT]

A couple of months back, I came home from singing old songs at a local pub, checked in with DU before retiring for the night, and came upon a question that gave me brain freeze...

It was one of the hundreds of discussions on the Snowden/Greenwald/NSA/ACLU/4th Amendment/Civil Rights/Privacy Rights/Etc... Discussions.

And I am definitely trying to remember, so therefore paraphrasing, the question asked in that thread...

And it went something like this: "How can one who complained about the outing of Valerie Plame, Support the leaks of Edward Snowden?"

And being two sheets to the wind, I immediately shut down the computer and went to bed.

And forgot about it, until today...

And I'm now working on it... I suppose there is a major difference between a Government "punching down" and outing a valuable intel resource versus a valuable resource "punching up" thinking he's trying to alert the American people.

I'm asking here: what else am I missing ?

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. Lacking for another answer. I don't see any conflict at all.

Last edited Thu Feb 27, 2014, 01:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Plame might have been a terrible operative. Snowden may well be an idiotic libertarian fantasist, neither would matter. What matters are the truths they brought to light.

[Hoppy]

2. One difference is the circumstances of each.

Valerie was inadvertently outed, I believe at a cocktail party. The follow-up was due to a political response, vengence against her husband for daring to protest against the need for the Iraq war.

Snowdon, as far as I know, had no political motives. His actions were based on a moral position. Cheney and crew were out for power, money, or whatever.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. I see no difference ...

but then, I'm an "NSA apologist!"

[WillyT]

5. Shhh... Don't Tell Anybody...

But when I taught debate in my middle-school classes...

I would remind them that the reason something is a controversy is because, generally, both sides have a good point.

Therefore the argument.

I would also do a switcheroo on them.

I'd let them pick the subjects they felt passionately about, have them take sides, debate...

And them make them revers roles.

They would howl in protest... but I told them that they would make better debaters if they could see/argue the other sides position.

You're not an NSA apologist.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. Shhh ...

Don't tell anyone ... It'll get you "on the list"; but it'll gain you plenty of stalkers.

[geek tragedy]

4. most of the reactions can be predicted based on partisanship and policy priorities.

Most of DU had zero problem watching Judy Miller go to jail for refusing to rat out her sources inside the government.

[WillyT]

6. Great Point...

[geek tragedy]

7. .

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. +1 ...

But that was different!

[treestar]

13. True. What Eddie did is just as wrong as what Cheney did

It's just that people like Eddie "embarrassing" President Obama. They didn't have the same score to settle with Cheney.

[riderinthestorm]

10. Who has Snowden "outed"? The NSA? A specific person? An intelligence asset?

As far as I can tell, he's outed the NSA as a governmental organization that's breached our privacy rights amongst other questionable legalities.

Cheney outed Plame in order to shut down Joe Wilson's criticism of the Iraq War. Snowden has outed the NSA to.... make sure we the people know what our government is doing?

Seems pretty clear to me about the differences

[KoKo]

11. agree... n/t

[treestar]

12. He still outed some activities

Many of them, rather than just one grand outing of one person.

Because he thought he knew it was best. Cheney did the same thing. We just don't agree with Cheney about what was best, but Snow's defenders must admit Cheney had the right to do as he thought best as well as Eddie did.

[rhett o rick]

14. They are as different as night and day. Cheney outed Ms. Plame to punish her husband.

It was totally personal. He was an authoritarian punishing a subordinate. While Edward Snowden revealed crimes being committed that were hidden. He was challenging the absolute power of an authoritarian program.

Cheney is wallowing in his wealth for committing an evil task, while Snowden, who did the American people a service, is in hiding trying to avoid torture and prison.

It doesnt matter that both thought they were doing what they thought was best. What matters is the outcome.

Equating Snowden with Cheney is absurd.

[treestar]

15. So only the motive matters?

I'm sure Cheney thought his motive was a good one - making sure to teach people lessons so others won't misbehave the same way, even if your reading is correct. And Eddie's motives are far from what you make them out to be. They are unclear, to say the least. He didn't use the WPA. He didn't stay to fight the charges against him. He went to a far more repressive nation to live.

[rhett o rick]

16. How do you ever get that? I said the opposite.

"It doesnt matter that both thought (their motive) they were doing what they thought was best. What matters is the outcome. "

Cheney did an evil thing. He is an evil authoritarian. Snowden did us a service calling attention to the violations of our Constitution.

I agree that Russia is overall more repressive than the USofA. However, the USofA is very repressive in the area of whistle-blowers.

Snowden embarrassed our authoritarian government, especially the most authoritarian part of our government. Some here want him punished for this embarrassment. Some support our authoritarian government with regard to suppressing whistle-blowers and punishing those that dare speak truth to power.

I think Democrats, in general, should side with truth seekers and not repressive authoritarians.