Edward Snowden’s Cowardice on Russian TV

[JI7]

As tens of thousands of Russian troops threatened Ukraine, Snowden on Thursday played a set piece in Vladimir Putin’s latest act of propaganda, appearing on a televised question-and-answer session with the Russian president. Snowden began with a denunciation of American data collection practices and then asked Putin a timid question about Russia’s policy on Internet surveillance. Putin responded, misleadingly, that Russia has laws restraining state security agents and judicial and political oversight of surveillance operations. The Russian president said he hopes — hopes! — Russia never conducts intrusive data collection.

Lest you wonder whether the National Security Agency leaker simply took the best opportunity he had to ask an honest question, consider the circumstances: Heavy state control over the airwaves in Russia, especially programs on which Putin appears, surely makes these sorts of things more staged than a professional wrestling match. Besides, if Snowden really wanted to press Putin, he would have listed the variety of human rights abuses and abridgments of free speech in which the Russian state is implicated — not to mention the suspicious murders of Russian journalists — rather than devoting his preamble to U.S. policy.

UPDATE, April 18, 11:00 a.m.: Snowden unrepentantly defended himself in a commentary the Guardian published on Friday. He claims he was trying to force Putin on the record about Russian state surveillance, and that journalists can now follow-up on his answer. This reasoning demonstrates that Snowden is either tragically, improbably naive about the role he played on Russian state television, or that he is extremely disingenuous. The bottom line is that Snowden helped Putin manipulate his Russian audience, most of whom will never see the sort of follow-up accountability journalism on Putin’s answer that one would expect in a liberal democracy. He did not ask Putin a tough question. His explanation — that he first needed to establish Putin’s position before criticizing it — does not make sense, given that there is already plenty of information available on the Russian government’s surveillance capabilities and on the wide-ranging abuse of its people’s various rights. Subsequently calling Russia’s ruler to account in a Western newspaper does not change any of that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/04/17/edward-snowdens-cowardice-on-russian-tv/

[BeyondGeography]

1. Yes to this

Besides, if Snowden really wanted to press Putin, he would have listed the variety of human rights abuses and abridgments of free speech in which the Russian state is implicated -- not to mention the suspicious murders of Russian journalists -- rather than devoting his preamble to U.S. policy.

[RobertEarl]

78. Fuck the washington post

They are 1% ers who will fuck over the people any chance they get.

Snowden has more guts in his big toe than the post has in its whole existence.

[BeyondGeography]

93. Awww, Eddie's hanging curve ball to Vlad has given all the Snowboys and girls a sadz

Your choice with this one is either unwitting fool or conniving toady.

Such poor judges of character you have turned out to be.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. "All the Snowboys and girls a sadz". Can you believe all the hissyfits and covering of ears?

[Cha]

79. Outstanding.. snowden was play acting.. setting it up for Pooter. Sucking Russia and of course

the glennwald/snowden fans eat up anything served.



Journalistic death toll in Putin's Russia

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/mar/11/journalist-safety-vladimir-putin

[RobertEarl]

82. Snowden got both Putin and Obama to lie

The guy is sharp! I wasn't a fan until now. Until now it was all about the spying ending. Snowden has rocked that world from both ends! Rock on!

[treestar]

88. haha good cartoon

that was about the dumbest thing Eddie has done so far.

[Cha]

90. Thinking he's not through yet .. Singing For his Sanctuary. :(

[Cha]

91. Lol.. check this out..

"Nothing can compare with the honesty and integrity of Vladimir Putin, so Snowden and Russians across the Motherland were no doubt comforted to learn from their leader that sort of surveillance is most definitely not allowed in Russia. America may engage in such oppressive operations but not Russia. Thanks for the call."

http://www.alan.com/2014/04/18/spy-vs-spy-the-snowden-and-putin-lovefest/

[itsrobert]

2. Snowden is an idiot

n/t

[KoKo]

43. You MISSED THE LATEST!

Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden--Mike Masnick
by Mike Masnick

Yesterday we, like many, were perplexed by Ed Snowden's decision to go on a Russian television program, and to ask Vladimir Putin a question about whether or not the Russians do mass surveillance like the NSA does (which was, of course, exposed by Ed Snowden). It was clearly playing into Putin's propaganda efforts, because Putin immediately took the opportunity to insist that no, Russia does not do mass surveillance like that. Of course, Putin's answer was not true. Many of Snowden's detractors immediately jumped on this as an example of how he was working for the Putin propaganda machine -- and many (including us), wondered if he was, at the very least, pressured to play a role in order to keep his temporary asylum. Others thought he was just being naive. Some Snowden supporters, however, insisted that we should hear him out, and see if there was some more specific motive behind his question.

Apparently, we didn't have to wait long. Snowden himself has now directly called Putin out for lying about Russian surveillance, and said that his question was designed to act similar to Senator Ron Wyden's now famous question to James Clapper, leading to Clapper's lie, which (in part) sparked Snowden's decision to finally release the files he'd been collecting. Snowden, writing in the Guardian, explained:

On Thursday, I questioned Russia's involvement in mass surveillance on live television. I asked Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, a question that cannot credibly be answered in the negative by any leader who runs a modern, intrusive surveillance program: "Does intercept, analyse or store millions of individuals' communications?"

I went on to challenge whether, even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified.

The question was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion. (See a side-by-side comparison of Wyden's question and mine here.)

Clapper's lie – to the Senate and to the public – was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.


He goes on to say:

When this event comes around next year, I hope we'll see more questions on surveillance programs and other controversial policies. But we don't have to wait until then. For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.

Finally, he notes that his position continues to remain entirely consistent:

I blew the whistle on the NSA's surveillance practices not because I believed that the United States was uniquely at fault, but because I believe that mass surveillance of innocents – the construction of enormous, state-run surveillance time machines that can turn back the clock on the most intimate details of our lives – is a threat to all people, everywhere, no matter who runs them.

Last year, I risked family, life, and freedom to help initiate a global debate that even Obama himself conceded "will make our nation stronger". I am no more willing to trade my principles for privilege today than I was then.

I understand the concerns of critics, but there is a more obvious explanation for my question than a secret desire to defend the kind of policies I sacrificed a comfortable life to challenge: if we are to test the truth of officials' claims, we must first give them an opportunity to make those claims.


I don't think many people -- other than perhaps the most diehard Snowden supporters -- expected something quite like this. For months, many Snowden detractors have repeatedly criticized Snowden for not speaking out against Russian authoritarianism and surveillance. Many of us have felt that those criticisms were significantly off-base, in part because that wasn't Snowden's particular fight (nor did he have any unique knowledge of Russian surveillance, as he did with the US). It seemed like a stupid false equivalency to try to make Snowden look bad. And when he asked his question to Putin, some people argued that this showed he was actually "questioning" Russian surveillance. Except that the TV question felt like such a softball, so designed to allow Putin to spin some propaganda that this didn't really seem like Snowden challenging anything.

However, this latest response suggests that Snowden is (once again) playing a game where he's several moves ahead of many folks. The question may have set up a propaganda answer, but it appears there was a bigger strategy behind it -- and one that remains entirely consistent with what Snowden has claimed his position has been since the beginning. Frankly, while this possibility was raised about his original question to Putin, many people (myself included) thought it was unlikely that Snowden would so directly go after his current hosts (who only became his hosts thanks to the US pulling his passport). Putin is not known for gracefully handling those who directly challenge him, and I don't think it would be surprise anyone if Snowden had continued to stay out of the question of Russian surveillance, simply out of basic necessity.

Snowden, however, has said from the beginning, that this story has never been about him, and he accepts that the end result of his starting the process may not be good for himself. He's made it clear that he was willing to effectively sacrifice himself to get this debate going -- and having done it once, he apparently has decided he can do it again in another context. While I was confused by this move 24 hours ago, I'll admit it was because I never thought Snowden would go this far (and so quickly) to criticize Russia while he was there. Already, given what Snowden did in releasing the NSA documents, he's shown that he's much braver (and in many ways, patriotic to the public) than just about anyone. In now questioning -- and then calling BS on Putin's answer -- he's shown that bravery was not a one-time thing, but a position he intends to live by going forward.

MORE AT:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140418/00394026952/snowden-calls-bs-putins-answer-says-he-was-playing-role-ron-wyden.shtml

[GoneFishin]

54. Yep. .... and .... the authoritarians get their asses handed to them again.

Sucks for them, to be on the wrong side of history.

But I guess for them being delusional takes the sting out of it.

[Rstrstx]

86. Anyone else get the feeling he might be wearing out his welcome in Russia?

His asylum was only granted for a year. Probably the only thing keeping him on the next plane out is that Vladimir and Barack are so involved in their pissing contest right now I doubt Putin would leave him out to rot, if for no other reason than to just piss off Obama; still, Eddie may need to start shopping around for another country.

[pnwmom]

128. What a crock! Snowden's appearance on Russian television is what was seen by

most Russians -- not his follow-up article in the Guardian.

[uponit7771]

134. after the fact? really? the article addressed this!!

[Cha]

81. He knew greenwald would get on twitter to defend.. Yeah, he did but I'm hearing "he got

his a$$ handed to him"..

[Cha]

87. A few pushback tweets @ greenwald..

Ken Gude ?@KenGude · Apr 17
No @ggreenwald but maybe its not such a good idea for a civil liberties hero to be a tool of a leader like Putin in a country like Russia

Laurent Ruseckas ?@LaurentRuseckas · Apr 17
@ggreenwald I don't understand your tweet but he really, really should not have done that.

Pradheep Shanker MD ?@Neoavatara · Apr 17
@ggreenwald How about simply stop being a shill for Putin?

Patterico ?@Patterico · Apr 17
.@ggreenwald This argument is a "false choice." http://is.gd/falsechoice

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/456787575207124992

arely http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4841642

[Hissyspit]

105. 1. Those were before Snowden's op/ed.

2. "I don't understand your Tweet..." It was perfectly clear.

3. "This argument is a false choice..." Not really.

[Cha]

110. #1 Eddie's OP is bullshit and #2 Who cares if it were before.. Glenn is always full of shit..

and #3 I know you don't agree.. so what?

[Phlem]

108. I know.

I happened to like the NSA snooping around my shit.



-p

[ProSense]

3. Yup,

UPDATE, April 18, 11:00 a.m.: Snowden unrepentantly defended himself in a commentary the Guardian published on Friday. He claims he was trying to force Putin on the record about Russian state surveillance, and that journalists can now follow-up on his answer. This reasoning demonstrates that Snowden is either tragically, improbably naive about the role he played on Russian state television, or that he is extremely disingenuous. The bottom line is that Snowden helped Putin manipulate his Russian audience, most of whom will never see the sort of follow-up accountability journalism on Putin’s answer that one would expect in a liberal democracy...

...and I go with "extremely disingenuous."

In his op-ed, Snowden tries to hype the importance of his question by linking to a Daily Beast piece that calls him out for being a tool. From his op-ed:

<...>

The investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov, perhaps the single most prominent critic of Russia's surveillance apparatus (and someone who has repeatedly criticised me in the past year), described my question as "extremely important for Russia". It could, he said, "lift a de facto ban on public conversations about state eavesdropping."

From the piece linked to in that paragaph:

“I think it was ridiculous,” says Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia’s security services who is also a professor at New York University. Andrei Soldatov, a Russian journalist who has broken major stories on the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, and is a Daily Beast contributor, was only slightly more charitable. “Putin never directly lies, he just tells half truths and his answer was a half truth,” he said. “In terms of what is going on inside the country, he was not correct. We have all signs of mass surveillance. My view is Russian surveillance is much more intrusive than what you have in the United States.”

<...>

Galeotti says he found the display of Snowden’s question for Putin on eavesdropping to be depressing. “I believed he was an honest man who made some stupid choices,” says Galeotti. “But in this case he was doing what was in his handler’s interests.”

“We have to think of two Snowdens,” Galeotti tells The Daily Beast. “There was the original whistleblower who thought he was doing something good for the world. Now there is the Snowden—to put it crassly—who is bought and paid for entirely by the Russians. The Russians are not altruistic, if they are protecting him they are doing so because there are things he can do to repay them.”

<...>

Soldatov said Snowden’s question could lift a de facto ban in Russia on public conversations about the state’s eavesdropping. “Before this question both Snowden and Greenwald refused to talk about surveillance in Russia,” he said. “Now we can ask Greenwald about this. Now we can start the debate. This is extremely important for Russia. I suspect Kremlin propaganda wanted to play Snowden, nevertheless this was a positive thing because it helps us to start the debate about the mass surveillance in Russia.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/sorry-snowden-putin-lied-to-you-about-his-surveillance-state-and-made-you-a-pawn-of-it.htm

Soldatov was being generous. He basically said, yeah, Snowden was used, but people are talking about what happened.

The fact is that nothing came out of this charade except a debate about Putin's and Snowden's character.

A more direct question (which likely couldn't happen) mentioning a specific program or incident would have sparked a debate inside Russia. As it stands, even Soldatov admits there is no debate in Russian. I could understand why, as a journalist, he would want to use this as an opportunity to spark a debate. A staged event and a lame-ass question isn't going to do it, and neither is Snowden's op-ed, which is just another lame attempt to cover his ass after a humiliating event.

In summary: Putin's show promoted his propaganda to its intended audience, Russians. Snowden's op-ed attempts to spin it to the rest of the world.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Maybe Snowden is going to "reveal" Russia's surveillance methods.

Snowden has lied in the past and now he expects me to believe him, no, never. He needs to get over himself, he may believe he is a legend in his own mind but do not expect the rest of the world to think the same. A proven liar.

[RobertEarl]

80. Obama was asked if the US spied on its citizens. He said No.

So now you don't trust Obama either?

I doubt Snowden cares one snot what you think about him.

But Snowden has many patriotic friends who realize that Obama is now back tracking from his error. An error that Snowden made Obama eat. That's really what jerks some of you off, isn't it? Obama made a mistake that Snowden called him on and it just makes some go overboard with angst.

[Thinkingabout]

94. Hell no, it does not jerk me off about Obama.

Why can't Snowden be accepted for what and why he does the things he does. You can not change the facts here by bringing other people into the mix. Snowden is a patsy, it is very clear what he is doing. Oh, Poor Baby, he is stuck in Russia, he is a zero who needs to remain at the curb where he kicked himself. If there is anything about Obama in this was a desire by some to discredit Obama. Snowden needs to get over himself, he is only a legend in his own mind.

[Spazito]

5. Completely agree...

" This reasoning demonstrates that Snowden is either tragically, improbably naive about the role he played on Russian state television, or that he is extremely disingenuous." It is the latter, extremely disingenuous, imo.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. You're "getting desperate". You're a "Snowden basher". "Putin = Obama"! "Revolution"!!!!!

I hope I don't need the sarcasm thingie.

[Cha]

83. "Authoritarian" "Apologist for the NSA".. How am I doin?..

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. You got the hang of it, my dear Cha. If you ain't kissin' GG, Snowie & Putin's asses...

you can't possibly be a real Democrat.

[Cha]

121. Exactly, Tarheel.. If we aren't betwitched and bamboozled by Eddie

then we're "authoritarian"/"nsa apologists"... but don't you dare call him "comrade eddie" .. 'cause they're getting sick of it "



Marlboro.Stan @MarlboroStan
Follow
Snowden: Do you spy on Americans?
PBO: No.
Snowden: LIAR!

Snowden: Do you spy on Russians?
Putin: No.
Snowden: I'm good with that.

2:07 PM - 19 Apr 2014

47 Retweets 15 favorites
Reply
Retweet
Favorite

TOD

[Tarheel_Dem]

123. I'm loving the tweet.

Marlboro.Stan @MarlboroStan
Follow
Snowden: Do you spy on Americans?
PBO: No.
Snowden: LIAR!

Snowden: Do you spy on Russians?
Putin: No.
Snowden: I'm good with that.

[Cha]

124. I know.. is it brilliant

or what? Someone had to comment on that shit and it's perfect.

[SidDithers]

7. DU rec...nt

Sid

[former9thward]

8. Everyday the Snowden haters have a new talking point.

They can't help themselves. Hoping something will stick one day ....

[Cirque du So-What]

9. I am neither a Snowden hater nor a Snowden fanboi

but playing the part of Putin's toady is not gonna generate much in the way of public sympathy in this country.

[bvar22]

10. They have become a parody of themselves in their haste to...

..join their conservative brethren on FOX News and protect the NSA.

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy and a government accountable to The People,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.







You will know then by their WORKS.

[ProSense]

15. What utter nonsense.

"They have become a parody of themselves in their haste to....join their conservative brethren on FOX News and protect the NSA."

Snowden plays Putin's tool and gets called on it, and you have the audacity to claim his critics have become a "parody of themselves"?

As I said up thread, and I'll repeat it here because, you know, links...

In his op-ed, Snowden tries to hype the importance of his question by linking to a Daily Beast piece that calls him out for being a tool. From his op-ed:

<...>

The investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov, perhaps the single most prominent critic of Russia's surveillance apparatus (and someone who has repeatedly criticised me in the past year), described my question as "extremely important for Russia". It could, he said, "lift a de facto ban on public conversations about state eavesdropping."

From the piece linked to in that paragaph:

“I think it was ridiculous,” says Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia’s security services who is also a professor at New York University. Andrei Soldatov, a Russian journalist who has broken major stories on the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, and is a Daily Beast contributor, was only slightly more charitable. “Putin never directly lies, he just tells half truths and his answer was a half truth,” he said. “In terms of what is going on inside the country, he was not correct. We have all signs of mass surveillance. My view is Russian surveillance is much more intrusive than what you have in the United States.”

<...>

Galeotti says he found the display of Snowden’s question for Putin on eavesdropping to be depressing. “I believed he was an honest man who made some stupid choices,” says Galeotti. “But in this case he was doing what was in his handler’s interests.”

“We have to think of two Snowdens,” Galeotti tells The Daily Beast. “There was the original whistleblower who thought he was doing something good for the world. Now there is the Snowden—to put it crassly—who is bought and paid for entirely by the Russians. The Russians are not altruistic, if they are protecting him they are doing so because there are things he can do to repay them.”

<...>

Soldatov said Snowden’s question could lift a de facto ban in Russia on public conversations about the state’s eavesdropping. “Before this question both Snowden and Greenwald refused to talk about surveillance in Russia,” he said. “Now we can ask Greenwald about this. Now we can start the debate. This is extremely important for Russia. I suspect Kremlin propaganda wanted to play Snowden, nevertheless this was a positive thing because it helps us to start the debate about the mass surveillance in Russia.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/sorry-snowden-putin-lied-to-you-about-his-surveillance-state-and-made-you-a-pawn-of-it.htm

Soldatov was being generous. He basically said, yeah, Snowden was used, but people are talking about what happened.

The fact is that nothing came out of this charade except a debate about Putin's and Snowden's character.

A more direct question (which likely couldn't happen) mentioning a specific program or incident would have sparked a debate inside Russia. As it stands, even Soldatov admits there is no debate in Russian. I could understand why, as a journalist, he would want to use this as an opportunity to spark a debate. A staged event and a lame-ass question isn't going to do it, and neither is Snowden's op-ed, which is just another lame attempt to cover his ass after a humiliating event.

In summary: Putin's show promoted his propaganda to its intended audience, Russians. Snowden's op-ed attempts to spin it to the rest of the world.

Greenwald got his ass handed to him on Twitter from trying to spin this embarrassing episode away.

[bvar22]

18. What UTTER BS.

People are generally unable to see themselves while in the process of becoming Foaming-at-the-Mouth spectacles, but they put on a really amusing show for all the rest of us.
QED

What do you hope to gain by demonizing the man who just helped win a Pulitzer on the issue of Government Transparency?
What song will you sing if a Republican gains the White House in 2016?

Consistency IS the Hallmark of an honest broker.

[ProSense]

19. LOL!

People are generally unable to see themselves while in the process of becoming Foaming-at-the-Mouth spectacles, but they put on a really amusing show for all the rest of us.
QED

What do you hope to gain by demonizing the man who just helped win a Pulitzer on the issue of Government Transparency?
What song will you sing if a Republican gains the White House in 2016?

Consistency IS the Hallmark of an honest broker.

More nonsense. Snowden leaked information and fled the country, and is now serving as Putin's tool.

He's not an "honest broker." He's a complicit in helping Putin spread his propaganda.

He has been from the start, initially praising Russia.

Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders.

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

The Guardian and WaPo won the Pulitzer was for Public Service reporting. Yeah, they ran the leaked information.

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Public-Service


Judith Milller won a Pulitzer, and everyone knows how that turned out.

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2002-Explanatory-Reporting


This year's award for Investigative Reporting goes to Chris Hamby, The Center for Public Integrity

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Investigative-Reporting

That's impressive.

The Pulitzer isn't a measure of character, and it has no bearing on the fact that Snowden made a friggin fool of himself.

[grasswire]

25. flap, flap, flappity flap.

The wrong side of history.

[ProSense]

27. Lame, lame and more lame.

"The wrong side of history."

Snowden will go down in history as a Putin's fool, and in a footnote.

[grasswire]

39. if so, you will have wasted hell of a lot of time bashing a nobody. nt

[ProSense]

41. Putin's tool. n/t

[joshcryer]

38. Yeah, because Russia and accountability go hand in hand.

If you think anything will come of this I have a country to annex for you.

Snowden was a patsy, but I can't blame him as he is now under Russia's control.

[L0oniX]

45. I suspect there may be a WMD somewhere too.

[L0oniX]

44. Damn ...that is some strong shit! +a zillion

[Chan790]

52. That last point is the very point...

We know Edward Snowden by his works too. They're the works of a traitor. He belongs in a cell next to Manning.

[JI7]

13. Snowden put himself out there with this Russian TV appearance

[Logical]

47. Prosense off tonight? nt

[ProSense]

55. Obsessed? n/t

[Logical]

57. LOL, coming from the person who has posted 10,000 Snowden posts. Who is Obsessed?? nt

[ProSense]

58. The person who did this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592785#post6

[Logical]

59. This proves you might be more obsessed....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2833842

[ProSense]

60. LOL!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post48
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post57
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post81
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post87
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post93
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post97

Don't ever stop projecting.

[Logical]

61. LOL, Go self kick some more posts that no one wants to read! nt

[ProSense]

62. OK

for the obsessed, anything: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024842335

[Bobbie Jo]

100. I was gonna say....

THAT took guts, considering how this poster can be found stalking you on virtually every single one of your threads.

I guess he thinks no one notices.

[Tarheel_Dem]

133. LOL

[grasswire]

14. as an antidote to the gum-flappers here...

....go over to the comments section at The Guardian and browse the nearly 800 comments there, nearly all of which are messages of support, confidence, gratitude to Edward Snowden for his courage and sacrifice. Snowden must be heartened by this outpouring of thoughtful support.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Only if you already agree with "The Guardian". What other result were you expecting?

[grasswire]

24. you are hell bent on discrediting The Guardian and its readers.

Too bad you are on the wrong side of history regarding the surveillance state.

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. I'm "discrediting the Guardian and its readers"? Far from it. I'm merely pointing out...

that you can't extrapolate much from reading the "comment section". People who are drawn to The Guardian already agree with its political bent. A scientific poll, however, gauges public opinion based on "random sampling", from across the political spectrum.

Besides, you're not gonna learn much about public opinion in the US, by reading the comment section of a foreign newspaper. Just sayin'.

[Number23]

29. What is with the running around DU telling everyone to read the Guardian comments section?

Who gives a shit?

The comments sections at LA Times, Washington Post and NY Times are eating the man alive and picking his bones. What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand?

[elias49]

69. So true. Who gives a shit about the haters in the Times and the Post comments?

I don't.
Kind of feel sad for them.

[Number23]

73. So the fans in the Guardian comments section are more important than the "haters" at the NY Times

and Wash Post? Thank you for that brilliant rebuttal. You absolutely could not have both missed the point and displayed your confirmation bias any more succinctly.

[arely staircase]

77. priceless isn't it? nt

[Hissyspit]

102. What is it with you telling everyone one to read Twitter responses?

Who gives a shit?

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4841671

[Number23]

111. That was tired and absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe the crap Snowden's fans are having to sink

to.

[Hissyspit]

112. Oh really?

Find a mirror.

[Number23]

119. Even sadder, needless and more pointless than its predecessor.

[Tarheel_Dem]

113. I know, right? They want us to read a foreign newspaper's "comment section" to...

gauge US opinion of Snowie's traitorous ass? I already know how we, as a nation, feel about him, doesn't matter what "The Guardian" readers say.

[Number23]

120. Absolutely right. More than one person has said over the last few days that they are ASTOUNDED

that anyone could still defend Snowden after this. The defenders obviously feel the same way hence the "THANK GOD FOR SNOWDEN" posts and the needlessly idiotic attacks like the one two posts above our subthread.

[Tarheel_Dem]

122. It's an EPIC FAIL of a PR campaign. Snowie's support is pretty much confined to...

the Ron Paul faction of DU. They're here to disrupt, and DU's opposition research regulars give them the perfect opening.

Take a look on Democratic Underground

They have the gov't paid trolls out, trying to limit the outrage & rebellion on there.

If that is the reaction of hard core Dems to the news stories on the NSA, I want to stoke up some more of it.

Lots of traffic on DU.

It's the most popular Dem internet site, except for Huffy Po - where everything meaningful gets censored.

http://www.dailypaul.com/288556/clapper-and-feinstein-get-caught-lying-big-time#comment-3103138

Notice how anyone who isn't in love with Snowie is called a "gov't paid troll"? That sound familiar?

[Number23]

125. Looks like the "govt paid trolls" had the right measure of this bit of fuckwittery

[Tarheel_Dem]

129. Yes they did, and the "Koch paid trolls" are swinging wildly.

[MADem]

127. I just went over there and your comment is not borne out by an examination of the remarks.

Unless you consider comments like "It was scripted" and "Putin allowed him to comment" as "messages of support...?"

There's a pretty vigorous debate sketched out there and a LOT of the comments raise the bullshit flag. Comments are now closed but it's interesting reading.

[arely staircase]

16. hey, if I went and made propaganda for the Russians I would expect some criticism nt

[former9thward]

20. Yes, but the talking point before was that Putin had Snowden hidden somewhere.

And 'how come he hasn't said anything about Russia?' Now he quizzes Putin and people criticize him for the questions and act like he is responsible for Putin's lack of transparency. If someone asked Obama the same questions you would get the same evasive non-answers and denials. So what? That is what leaders do.

[arely staircase]

21. quizzes?

lol

[former9thward]

22. I have always found that people who use lol and rofl in responses have lost the argument.

So they want to make it appear that answering intelligently is beneath them. Everyone sees through it.

[arely staircase]

23. or alternatively

Maybe such people find the premise of your argument laughable.

[elias49]

70. So you won't mind if I say lol.

Good deal

[Marr]

64. +1

[Vashta Nerada]

67. Some of them seem like they get paid for all the anti-Snowden stuff they post.

[GoneFishin]

97. Of course some are. The web is perfect to spread authoritarian propaganda. And cheap too.

Propagandizing the american tax payer with their own money is SOP now.

With billions of black budget dollars, and little accountability, some of that money absolutely ends up being used for PR.

I don't know which ones are being paid to copy and paste talking points in their pajamas, but some definitely are. Because there are only two possibilities:

1) They are using the web to proliferate pro-spying propaganda, or
2) They overlooked the web as a public relations tool. (<--- pssst. Not very likely)

[treestar]

89. Er, no, it's Eddie who makes it about himself

Or has let himself be Pootie's tool.

[snooper2]

132. you going to comment on Simon from VICE being taken by Russian supporting assholes?

[sheshe2]

11. I go for extremely disingenuous.

Oh and keep on spinning Eddie, you're doing a bang up job on keeping your lofty ideals front and forward or not.

[jazzimov]

12. Snowden may not be a "Russian spy"

but that doesn't mean that Putin isn't using him.

[Blue_Tires]

26. That last paragraph nails it

Anyone who still has delusions about Snowden being suicidal enough to "set up" Putin at his own press conference on national TV and Putin being gullible enough to fall for it is getting a wake-up call...

[Number23]

28. I just posted this in response to another thread. He is being eaten alive

[Dopers_Greed]

30. Did I accidentally go to Free Republic?

It's hard to tell reading this topic.

[elias49]

71. No shit. It's an epidemic.

[Cha]

84. Snowden Pimping for Putin.. yeah, that is rwinger.

[ellie50]

31. Irony

The irony of people on this forum calling Snowden a coward, from the comfort of their own homes, is astounding.

What have you given up for your ethics or beliefs? He may be many things to many people, but "coward" is not one of them.

Snowden is a man without a country, a "guest" of Russia because there is no where else for him to go. You expect him to double down on Putin?

His actions started an important dialog on the surveillance state, privacy and the fourth amendment.



.

[L0oniX]

32. YAwn ..yea that's right ...what he revealed means nothing because he is a (take your choice).

[B Calm]

33. Snowden, yawn. . the darling of the Tea Party

[Tarheel_Dem]

116. And the Cliven Bundy lovin' Oathkeepers, but they're probably the same people.

[99Forever]

34. Does this mean the NSA has stopped it's unConstitutional...

... spying on American citizens?


(Anyone want to bet on whether any of these authoritarian/surveillance/police state apologista will give a legitimate answer to that far more important question than another of their lameass attempts at personal vilification?)

[bobduca]

37. who now?

someone's trying to disrupt this thread? Ignore them all.

[clg311]

35. The real cowards

Are the knee jerk Obama supporters who are bashing Snowden.

[Tarheel_Dem]

117. You haven't been here long enough to be namecalling, or have you been here before?

[MNBrewer]

36. Fuck this crap.

[WillyT]

40. Stephen Stromberg... Hahahahahahahahahaha...

That is funny.

Third Way Columnist...

WaPo Title Of Blog: Post Partisan

Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/president_obama_is_a_socialist.html

He plays both sides of the Ping pong table...

[ProSense]

42. What's even more hilarious is watching people spin Putin using Snowden as a tool as

a profile in courage.

"Snowden ought to be embarrassed for helping to catapult it into the dialogue."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024833461

[WillyT]

46. Ironic... 'Profiles In Courage' Was A Book Written By A War Hero, Who Saved The Men Of His PT-Boat

After Being Sliced In Half By A Japanese Destroyer During World War II

He and his brothers could have taken their Daddy's money and had wild parties on the family yacht.

They did not... they served in WWII, and after serving, decided to serve again.

In Congress, to try to expand FDR's vision, the Presidency...

And two of them wound up shot in the head for their efforts.

Please do not talk to me about profiles in courage.

[ProSense]

48. Was he also Putin's tool?

"Please do not talk to me about profiles in courage."

Don't compare Putin's tool to anyone with actual "courage."

[ucrdem]

49. Snowball is no Jack Kennedy.

That much I think we can all agree on.

[elias49]

72. I think we can agree on something else..

that you should use spell check or grow up.

The man's last name is Snowden, whether you like him or not.
Thanks

[MohRokTah]

50. Snowden's just another grifter.

Grifters gonna grift.

[Hissyspit]

104. Yeah, the Washington Post... Iraq War saber-rattlers.

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2008/05/01/22632/wp-editorial-iraq

The paper started out hawkishly, echoing many of Bush’s arguments and calling war “an operation essential to American security” even before Powell’s presentation. The Post then quickly endorsed Powell’s WMD and al Qaeda claims. … Yet as invasion approached, the paper shifted its tone. In two lengthy editorials, it directly answered antiwar arguments and responded to readers who’d accused the paper of “jingoism.” Following this public grappling with dissent, the Post unleashed a flurry of editorials smacking the Bush administration for “worryingly vague” postwar planning. … The paper never changed its stance on war, however.

https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0304-07.htm

In February alone, the Post editorialized nine times in favor of war, the last of those a full two columns of text, arguing against the considerable critical reader response the page had received for pounding the drums of war.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. Doing this was at the very least naive and terrible decision-making

It's shocking that the Snowdenites on this board are actually trying to defend this embarrassing and ill-conceived participation in Putin's propaganda stunt. It makes Snowden look like a very silly little child, at best.

[pa28]

53. Snowden gave up everything in the interest of public disclosure.

Labeling him a coward is the cheapest kind of hyperbole.

[Blaukraut]

56. Snowden has become Russia's/Putin's useful idiot

Anybody who expected a different outcome from this situation was deluded.

[Marr]

65. Psst-- the talking point has been updated. /nt

[Beacool]

75. Putin is old KGB. He's using Snowden as a propaganda tool.

Well, dude better start learning Russian. He's stuck there for the duration, unless he returns his cowardly ass back to the US.

[BenzoDia]

63. Snowden is a tool. His supporters even moreso.

[Cha]

85. They all get major points for spinning as fast as they can to rationalize eddie pimping for

putin.

[Vashta Nerada]

66. Okay. So Snowden was on Russian tv. Big f'n deal.

Now, let's actually talk about the issue Snowden initially addressed--the NSA domestic spying.

Remember that? Or are we going to forget about that?

[randome]

95. How much longer is this going to go on?

Snowden wanted changes and Obama made changes. The changes aren't on the level of what most of us would want but according to Snowden, in his own words, his mission is finished.

I think even the bare minimum of self-reflection might tell him that maybe he really is finished. What do you think he wants now? No international spying at all?

He won't say what he wants any more than he will say what he means when he 'saw things' while at the NSA.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[99Forever]

96. I asked the swarm that very same question upthread.

I even predicted they wouldn't address it, in that very same post.

I was absolutely correct. ALL they have is stupid personal assassination bs. Nothing of real substance. Ever. Lame on steroids.

[GoneFishin]

98. But ... but ... boxes ... and Pootee Poote ... and I'm rubber, your glue.

[flamingdem]

68. recccc

[Beacool]

74. This guy has become Putin's tool.

Is he stupid enough to think that the rest of the world don't do the same or worse than what we do? I think that Snowden is a weasel and a traitor who sold his country to the enemy. He's lucky that he's an American, if he had been Russian, Putin would have disposed of him long ago.

[Cha]

76. I'm going for the later.. I've seen how eddie works..

"This reasoning demonstrates that Snowden is either tragically, improbably naive about the role he played on Russian state television, or that he is extremely disingenuous. The bottom line is that Snowden helped Putin manipulate his Russian audience, most of whom will never see the sort of follow-up accountability journalism on Putin’s answer that one would expect in a liberal democracy."

From your link.. Good beginning..

The Edward Snowden leaks were not wholly contemptible. Unlike, it’s now thoroughly clear, Edward Snowden himself

.
Were the Russians satisfied just like a section of the USA that laps up everything eddie and glenn have to say about anything?

Mahalo JI7

[Progressive dog]

99. He's just ingratiaing himself with his host,

doesn't make him not a patriot. LOL
If he weren't a sniveling POS, he would come home and see what a jury of his peers thinks.

[Phlem]

101. HOLY SHIT!

my ignore feature quit working!

-p

[ProSense]

106. Snowden's question and op-ed were attempts to whitewash Russian spying by equating it to the NSA.

Snowden's question and op-ed were attempts to whitewash Russian spying by equating it to the NSA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024843557

[kpete]

107. I wish

I could be half the patriot Snowden is


peace, kp

[Cha]

109. Don't think so poorly of yourself..

More Snowden leaks - and this time Al Qaeda is the surveillance target (+video)

".. But what caught my eye in one of the unredacted slides was the mention of Al Qaeda in Iraq being a particular target of the NSA's efforts. The slide reads: "Visual Communicator – Free application that combines Instant Messaging, Photo-Messaging, and Push2Talk capabilities on a mobile platform. VC used on GPRS or 3G networks." The next five words were what the Times tried and failed to redact: "heavily used in AQI Mosul Network."

The aim as described in the documents is to target mobile phone apps that can give away a target's physical location. The utility of this in tracking terrorists hardly needs to be stated. The document describes a program focusing on clear security interests – Al Qaeda in Iraq, now calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) – killed thousands in Iraq during the US-led war there and continues to carry out suicide bombings and attacks on civilians there on a weekly basis. ISIS is also deeply involved in the civil war in Syria, and the groups ties to Al Qaeda make it an obvious security concern for the US.."

snip//

"..But his claim that "none of this has anything to do with terrorism" is not reasonable. That's pure nonsense -- as is his attempt to suggest that any revelations of eavesdropping techniques can't do any harm because terrorists already know all about it. Terrorists may know that the US is trying to spy on them as best it can (just as Germany and France know that). But knowing the precise method is another thing altogether."

MOre..
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/2014/0130/More-Snowden-leaks-and-this-time-Al-Qaeda-is-the-surveillance-target-video

Peace backatcha~

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. Why? Remember this? He only got religion post-Obama. Hmmmm.....

Edward Snowden in 2009: Leakers Should Be "Shot in the Balls" - PolicyMic

Chat logs published by the popular tech news site Ars Technica reveal an Edward Snowden who held very different views about whistleblowers four years ago than his actions this month would imply.

On #arsificial, a channel on Ars Technica's public Internet Relay Chat server, Snowden shared his opinions with other users on everything from life in Switzerland ("God I hate metric. Why can't they use real numbers over here?&quot to Ron Paul ("He's so dreamy.&quot to unemployment in the US ("Almost everyone was self-employed prior to 1900. Why is 12% employment so terrifying?&quot to Social Security ("Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine.&quot .

It's no surprise, then, that in the course of looking through Snowden's more than 800 posts on Ars Technica, one encounters several comments about the NSA and the state of privacy in the United States. What is absolutely shocking, however, is what Snowden said.

In one remarkable chat that took place in January 2009, Snowden ranted about a New York Times article that described secret negotiations between President Bush and Israel about the Iranian nuclear threat. Snowden was incensed about the fact that the Times had used government insiders, none of whom "would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran," as sources.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/51403/edward-snowden-in-2009-leakers-should-be-shot-in-the-balls

[whatchamacallit]

126. HAIL HYDRA!

[LanternWaste]

130. Seems to be more column inches devoted to gossip columns about him than the policies he illuminated

Seems to be more column inches devoted to gossip columns about him than the policies he illuminated....