I'm getting really sick of the whole "Comrade Eddie" BS from some

[unreadierLizard]

It's not as though Snowden chose to even GO to Russia, FFS. His passport was revoked/cancelled and essentially left him stranded there - no country will take him in because the USA uses it's bully pulpit to scare them into compliance - just look at the farce with Boliva's presidental plane.

And even if Snowden came right out and said Russia was the best place on earth and he loves Putin very much, it still doesn't invalidate the fact the US government got caught with its pants down thanks to his data - people may have different personalities but data doesn't change, no matter what perspective you look at it with.

I can guarantee that if Snowden had leaked these documents with, say, President John McCain or Mitt Romney, those calling him a traitor would be standing in the streets calling him a hero to democracy.

Funny how it works.

[tritsofme]

1. Comrade Eddie? I like it, that's a good one.

He has made his bed, now he can sleep in it.

He and his apologists only continue to look more foolish.

[unreadierLizard]

2. ?

How so? By being against the increasingly repressive methods of "spy on everyone for no reason, then lie to the people and congress about it" the NSA and the executive branch have been practising?

[JJChambers]

13. Surveillance has it's merits; it was used to quickly apprehend the boston marathon bombers

We just need to better regulate how we utilize surveillance technology. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

19. Apprehended after they murdered.

Meanwhile your beloved surveillance state also gets you this....




DEA Raids Woman's Home After Shopping at Garden Center.

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/25232377/dea-raids-womans-shorewood-home-after-she-shops-at-garden-center

[JJChambers]

23. Yes, after. But before they could bomb again.

That's the way surveillance works -- it's mostly used to solve crime and occasionally used to prevent crime.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

27. You seems confused.

The definition of surveillance is sur·veil·lance noun \sər-ˈvā-lən(t)s also -ˈvāl-yən(t)s or -ˈvā-ən(t)s\
: the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime.


The goal of surveillance is prevention. If you're using surveillance and then the crime is committed, your surveillance failed.

[JJChambers]

35. Smooth

Prevention of crime is (obviously) preferred over simply solving crime. In the real world, surveillance is primarily used to solve crime that has already happened. Until every CCTV camera and every cell phone is monitored in real time, by a real person, surveillance will continue to primarily be used to solve, rather than prevent, crime.

[Aerows]

51. Uh, yeah

and whatever they are doing isn't working worth a damn. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is throwing privacy rights out of the window and preventing no instances of terrorism, even domestic ones.

I for one do not like that we have unilaterally as a nation had our privacy as citizens thrown out with the bathwater for no good goddamn reason. Like preventing episodes of terrorism. Like preventing mass murders.

Funny how none of that gets stopped, but holy hell, tell the world what is going on without our knowledge and consent, and you need to be imprisoned! Release the Senate evaluation that the torture went way too far, and OMG let's get the DoJ involved, because we can't have the American people know what is being done in their name and with their tax dollars.

THAT is what is truly despicable. When it becomes a crime to reveal evidence of crimes committed by our government, our government is run by criminals.

[DirkGently]

82. Well said. We have whistleblower laws for a reason.

We all agreed a long time ago that revealing illegal government action is less of a crime than the illegal action itself.

To stand on the idea that it doesn't matter whether a leak uncovered a far greater harm that it caused, and that government secrecy is more important our democracy, is an extreme rightwing point of view.

[merrily]

124. The reasons we have whistleblower laws may be cosmetic these days.

Ellsberg's case was dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct. (Ayers', too, for that matter.) However, Ellsberg has said that he does not believe the case would have been dropped for that reason today.

While you can't prove or disprove that, there are enough people recounting their experiences with trying to follow the law for me to agree with Ellsberg, FWIW.

Terra has been a great excuse for so many wrong things. And no end is in sight.

[DirkGently]

127. One of this administration's greatest shames.

They kept up the railroad job against Thomas Drake as well. No administration has abused the Espionage Act to attack whistleblowers the way this administration has. It is firmly and forever in the dark column of Obama's role in history.

[merrily]

133. Most secretive administration ever, after we were promised the

most transparent administration ever.

I think the first lawsuit against this administration (as opposed to those carried over from Bush) was the ACLU suing for the White House visitor logs after the WH refused the ACLU's FOIA request for the logs.

The goal of the ACLU probably being to show that the WH was negotiating health care legislation in the WH. After, of course, we were also promised those negotiations would be public. C-Span, wasn't it?

[okaawhatever]

326. Sounds incredibly untruthful. do you have any credible sources for your claims? nt

[merrily]

362. Yes.

[Mojorabbit]

184. + a gazillion. nt

[nashville_brook]

194. and it's a horrible precedent to set for when another ALEC-republican takes office

it would be nice to preserve some semblance of freedom of the press, should we ever decide we need it.

[DirkGently]

202. First they came for Snowden, and I said, "Yay, kill the Commie!"

Then they came for Greenwald, and I said, "Yeah, he spoke at a Libertarian thing once. F that guy!"

Then President Cruz was elected, and I was arrested for an e-mail I wrote in favor of healthcare reform or the Post Office or something, and I said,

"Dammit, Snowden is SUCH a commie!"

[Ed Suspicious]

222. +++++

[MADem]

264. More than once; and the Koch - funded CATO Institute paid him a stipend for over a year to

do a lame little study about drugs in Portugal. And check out these citations--as a member of the Koch club, they're touting him over at CATO--he's a "must read" pundit of theirs, as far as they are concerned:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/search/results/Glenn%20Greenwald

See, that's how they get 'em in the tent--they give them money, get them used to it, persuade them that they're not so bad...and awaaay they go!

Greenwald is a libertarian, and not a terribly liberal one, either.

[DirkGently]

280. Well then I guess the NSA is fine, & no one's to blame!

[MADem]

281. Well, I don't think the NSA is "fine" but I don't think that makes Glenn Greenwald a font of

unbiased and pure information.

I also think that Snowden is a cipher. He's not acquitting himself too well with this latest dog and pony show with the Fearless Leader.

In time, we'll learn if he was coerced or was a happy collaborator.

[DirkGently]

282. Feel free to debunk the information. Smearing journalists

based on tacky insinuations is a disingenuous ploy.

[MADem]

283. I don't have to "debunk" a thing--actions speak loudly, and when they're accompanied

by cloying and sycophantic words, like Ed's to Vlad, they SCREAM.

[sabrina 1]

338. He could be a spy for the US. Why else would the US Government force him into Russia

which never made sense?

Oh, btw, could you give us a list of sources that are unbiased with pure information since nearly all sources other than the Corporate Media which surely ISN'T biased or funded by any type of Corporation, well Kochs are funding PBS now, appear to have been dismissed as unreliable.

[MADem]

339. He could be. Anything is possible; I rule out NOTHING.

All sources are biased, so there's your "list," OK?

However, some are gut-stinkingly, obviously, and overwhelmingly biased. They don't even try to be subtle, they don't even attempt to take an even-handed approach to an issue.

Greenwald is one of those. The team at FauxSnooze are, too.

[sabrina 1]

342. Faux agrees with you on Greenwald. They are certain, and always have been, that

his nearly ten year career of attacking Bush policies makes him a 'traitor'. Big corps agree with you re Greenwald too, they view him as a dangerous threat to their corrupt profiteering, enough to hire private Security Corps to lie about him. Ever see what the bid on that contract proposed? I see the results here sometimes, so we know someone got the contract.

Greenwald IS biased, in favor of our Civil Rights. That's fine by me. I support our Civil Rights also and have no problem being called 'biased' in that direction, I consider it a compliment.

[MADem]

344. Well, Faux likes the CATO institute, and so does Greenwald--so they have a few things in common, now

don't they?

I think Faux likes Greenwald a lot--but I don't watch them, so I don't know. I guess you must, since you know so much about what they like and don't like, eh?

[sabrina 1]

356. The Cato Talking Point! There it is, again! Lol!

[MADem]

357. It's not a talking point--it's a very inconvenient truth. nt

[sabrina 1]

358. Oh, it's a talking point. Already established, quite some time ago. Kos talked to the

Cato Institute also. If he ever wanders off the accepted course, I'm sure it will be recycled for him too, with about the same effect, zero.

It was never a very clever talking point which makes me wonder how much they pay for this stuff. The sheer childishness of their talking points renders them useless the minute they roll them out. This one keep resurfacing, with the same results, laughter mostly, like 'so what'? Is there some significance attached to this?

Here's the thing, if you want to smear someone, and they DID, that is not in doubt, then do some research to find SOMETHING that actually matters to people.

I mean Obama appoints REPUBLICANS to his cabinet. Greenwald, among others, gave a talk to the Cato Institute.

Which one of these things was more damaging to the country??? See what I mean?

It's a talking point but we have all wondered what it was supposed to do regarding the smear campaign that was orchestrated against Greenwald. No one seems to know.

A good smear is something that people have an instant negative reaction to.

But they could not find anything on Greenwald, so I guess this is what is known as 'scraping the barrel' in desperation to earn that fee for the smear campaign.

I am always happy to see this dragged up over and over again because it demonstrates that even with all the incentive, the CONTRACT out on Greenwald, THIS is all they could come up with??

[MADem]

360. Kos is an ex-Republican with a corporate POV. He was hoping to parlay his "net cred"

into a talking head career. It did not work because the camera does not love him.

Don't expect a full throated "defense of Kos" from me. I don't particularly care for his site--it's too hard to navigate and user unfriendly, and some of those "diaries" are pedantic.

Darn the bad luck for you!

One more time--it's an INCONVENIENT truth, it's obviously very upsetting to you, because you keep pushing back against it.

Obama isn't Greenwald, or Snowden. We aren't talking about HIM, either--never mind Kos (odd, the comparisons you make, as if they matter). Bush appointed Democrats, too. So what? It's what Presidents do -- pay attention down the years, it is a common tradition.

Gasp.

Glenn Greenwald was supported by Koch money for well over a year. That's the bottom line. He repaid the Koch generosity by repeatedly associating himself with CATO. Inconvenient, indeed, to those who want to see him as someone who is pure of heart, and an idealist...but true.


Now, he's alligned himself with a guy who is diametrically opposed to Putin's worldview vis a vis Ukraine--and since he left GUARDIAN, he's got to play ball to get that paycheck...which either makes life difficult for Snowden, or makes life simpler for him, depending on perspective.

I get the sense that Snowden isn't answering Glenn's calls much anymore.

[sabrina 1]

363. The reason I love when people drag this Cato Talking point up is that I KNOW the facts about it. And

the facts only make Greenwald LOOK BETTER. Lol, omg I love this.

It is clear that you HAVE NO CLUE what he DID re the CATO Institute. Because if you did you would NEVER MENTION IT.

This is how we recognize TALKING POINTS. Those using them generally just repeat them without having a clue what they are doing.

I think it's time to write an OP about Greenwald and the Cato Institute again.

I was thrilled with what Greenwald did at the CATO Institute. ALL DEMS should do what he did to that organization.

All real Dems applauded his willingness to take them on when so many are AFRAID OF THEM.

Really you shouldn't have brought this up, it isn't what you think it is. Which is why I am having so much fun watching you dig deeper assuming that you are discrediting him, when in fact you have no clue what he did there.

Re Kos, I despise the man, always have.

I see you agree. Then please explain why he is such a member in good standing of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Why do elected Dems post on his blog rather than HERE eg?

You are RIGHT about him, he is a 'former', so he claims, Republican, a homophobe, a Libertarian who welcomed Paul to his blog while he was banning DEMOCRATS.

So why then he is a Democratic insider??

See, you make my point. You are RIGHT about Kos. Tell it to the leadership of the Dem Party. Many of us have tried. They chose HIM to speak for online Dems despite his 'resume' while refusing to allow REAL DEMS to take that position.

Thanks, I love it when the truth comes out, no matter how or why.

List of some of the Dems/Liberals who have written for or spoken at the Cato Institute?

'Liberal Blogger, Dem Party insider: Kos

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (speaking about surveillance issues at CATO in January, 2011, speaking again at CATO in July, 2012 about FISA, and favorably citing CATO);

Democratic Rep. Jared Polis (defending CATO as "a leader in fighting to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and helping to end the War on Drugs&quot .

the ACLU's Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson (speaking at the CATO Institute's 2011 event on FISA);
Brown University Professor Glenn Loury (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong (writing for CATO's Unbound);
Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig (writing for CATO's Unbound);

liberal blogger and GWU Professor Henry Farrell (writing for CATO's Unbound); and
Wall Street critic and securities professor William Black (writing for CATO's Unbound).

Now what did Greenwald write about/discuss for Cato?

In 2009 he wrote a report on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal. Why? He, like most Liberal Dems, opposes the draconian, Reagan Drug War.

in 2010 he had an online debate in which he argued against former Bush officials about the evils of the surveillance state.

Wow, he opposed the Bush criminals and used a Cato platform to do so.

As I said, the 'Cato Talking Point'. Find something, ANYTHING, you can attach the target to that might discredit him/her no matter how disingenuous. Don't go into details, just hurl a few words and hope no one looks beyond that. THAT is how talking points are made.

KUDOS to Greenwald for his work against the Bush gang at CATO and elsewhere.

And THANK YOU for reminding us of committed he has been to oppose BUSH policies, anywhere he can.

I would put that talking away in the old moldy bag of failed talking points it has been relegated to. It only makes Greenwald look GOOD, and I doubt that was your intention.

[MADem]

369. Naaah...you don't "love" it at all. Otherwise you wouldn't keep insisting how much you love

something that calls into question your little friend's objectivity.

The reason I love ....

... Lol, omg I love this....

No, you don't. You protest WAY too much to "love" anything about this topic. And then, you provide a list of OTHER libertarian leaners to "prove" your point? Sorry, no sale there, either!

He took a check from CATO for over a YEAR--that wasn't a little "report"--it was a white paper, a large and ponderous study, that, at the end of the day, was a "make work" job that gave CATO a reason to pay him lots of money over a long period of time. And then, he made appearances for them; appearances that were compensated and designed to create a false impression about the political leanings of the institute in question. He was happily complicit in this charade.

And who "owns" CATO? The Koch boys. It's their baby.

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute.[6][7]

He even partied with 'em!



Keep whistling in the dark, though! Keep talking about Kos as though anyone cares about him, too. This isn't "Daily Kos," you know--or maybe you're confused? Hint--they're orange.

[sabrina 1]

370. Kudos to Greenwald and all the other Democrats who used Cato to slam Bush's policies.

Talking points fail when the morons who come up with them fail to do their research.

Kos, the Dem Party's designated 'Liberal Spokesperson' for online Democrats.

No wonder you don't want to talk about him.

Uncomfortable isn't it, how many Republicans the Dem Party appoints to powerful positions OVER actual Democrats.

I do LOVE it when the half dozen or so Corporate Talking points, bought and paid for as we know for sure, by Corporate entities to try to silence Journalists like Greenwald surface over and over again because it gives people an opportunity to expose the incredible deception that is used in order to suppress the truth.

The CATO talking point is a perfect example of the dishonesty and hypocrisy that they HAVE TO USE to TRY to stop people from focusing on the crimes they have been committing against the American people for over a decade now.

And rather than achieve that goal, it only disgusts people more.

Thanks to people like Greenwald, and the now growing list of Whistle Blowers, like Snowden, Manning, Drake et al, it is far more difficult for the liars and traitors to get the American people to ignore their crimes as the polls show.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity once again to expose the lie of the Cato Talking Point. And the lengths the guilty parties will go to, to try to silence Journalists. The fact they have not succeeded doesn't seem to have registered, but it will, eventually. Meantime keep up the good work.

[MADem]

371. Oh, tell me AGAIN how much you "love it," why don't you?

And why don't you "thank" me again, too while you're at it?

I'm sure Glenn Greenwald of the Libertarian Cato Institute thanks you, too!

After all, it takes an individual of a very curious mindset to so vociferously defend a guy who defended the Citizens United decision!

[sabrina 1]

372. Okay, I do love it. Massive spying on the American by the NSA is a crime against the

American people. Journalists and Whistle Blowers who reveal those crimes are doing their duty.

Naturally the perps who are being exposed are not going to like those who expose them.

So rather than prove their own innocence, which clearly cannot be done, they engage in what is know as attempts to 'cover up' their crimes.

We have learned over the past number of years that those committing crimes against the American people hire Security Contractors, such as HB Gary eg, to bid on contracts to SMEAR JOURNALISTS who report on their crimes and corruption.

Greenwald, as we know, was a target of one of those Smear Campaign Contract Bids.

Exposed and embarrassed by the exposure of something that should disgust every American HB Gary slunk away since there was simply no way to defend their vile practices.

However it is clear that someone got the Smear Campaign Contract. The 'material' is now familiar.

The CATO talking point was one of the easiest to debunk which was done effectively long ago.

But I suppose when there is no defense for what Greenwald has exposed as a journalist, falling back on the Cato Talking point is about the best someone can do. And that is why I love it when I see it, but it means there is simply no way to address the exposed crimes so 'point over there'. Only problem is we did, and it made matters even worse for the perps because it exposed even more deception and lies.

I do love to see it. It is a sign that the people are winning this battle for their rights. How could anyone not love it is the question?

[MADem]

374. Well, you haven't "debunked" it to my satisfaction--not even close.

Glenn Greenwald of the Libertarian CATO Institute, he who supported the Citizens United decision, may be your great love, but many don't share your view.

See, they can read his articles and see the videos, up on YOUTUBE, of Glenn Greenwald appearing at the Libertarian CATO Institute, for which he was paid handsomely with Koch money.

[sabrina 1]

375. Ron Wyden appearing at the Libertarian CATO Institute! Ezra Klein!

Kos, the designated Liberal Blogger by the Dem Party, at the CATO Ins among so many others.

Why did Ron Wyden use the CATO Institute as a platform to express his views?

Why did all those other Democrats and Liberals do so?

That's what people wondered when the CATO TALKING POINT first appeared! They wondered what the point was to point to Greenwald and leave out all the other Democrats who have done the same thing. In fact after researching it a little, they were GLAD that Liberals and Dems like Wyden and Greenwald DID use that platform for their views on Liberal issues.

It is exactly because everyone can read his and all the other Democrats' who used the CATO platform to express their opinions, that the CATO TALKING POINT was such a disaster for them.

I'm not sure why you want to keep on using such a proven failed talking point, but as I said, I love it when you do because it gives me a chance to expose the lengths those with something to hide will go.

Btw, I'm not really writing this info for you, it's for anyone reading who might not be aware of the deceptions and smear campaigns aimed at journalists and whistle blowers and from my experience there are many people who only read here letting us know often, how grateful they are for those who correct the smears etc.

[MADem]

380. So? You're not making the point you seem to hope you're making.

Who cares what "Ron Wyden" did? Did he accept a Koch stipend for over a year from the Libertarian CATO Institute, like Glenn Greenwald of the Libertarian CATO Institute did? I'll bet he didn't, but I don't really care if he did!

Did "Ron Wyden" support the CITIZENS UNITED decision...like Glenn Greenwald of the Libertarian CATO Institute did?

[merrily]

367. Thanks. Suggested response to all attempted, yet irrelevant smears:

Even if true, so what? Point is, the NSA is spending massive amounts of the people's time and money to spy on the people--and attempted so to do without informing the people. Thank heaven we found out.

The only issues worth discussing are the activities of the NSA. Worthy of only the most rapid passing mention are your repeated attempts to deflect attention by irrelevant smearing of individuals. They disclosed truth to the people, who had a Constitutional right to know, as well as a Constitutional right to privacy. Now, that we've covered that, let's focus back on the real issue: the massive, but Constitutionally-forbidden activities of the USG.

[Dragonfli]

266. .

Good one!

[merrily]

119. Hear, hear. Not only our privacy, but our Constitutional rights.

[NealK]

295. +1 n/t

[merrily]

117. You're faulting someone for using the dictionary definition of a word, instead of

making it up as they go along?


The brothers were flagged twice before the crime. That was probably cause. Instead of surveilling them, we're now told the FBI claims they asked for more info then did nothing when the Russians did not comply with their request for more info. But, I have to pass four cameras to buy my lunch?

[merrily]

114. The goal of surveillance should be prevention. Obviously, it is not being used that way.

And, apparently, that's fine with some, as long as it's a Democrat in the Oval Office.

[MADem]

259. Your own quote says "prevent OR DETECT A CRIME."

You detect the crime, and you bring the perpetrators to justice.

The goal of surveillance, per your very own definition, is also to DETECT A CRIME.

[Maedhros]

98. You've touched upon the relevant issue.

Surveillance is a valuable tool when conducted against actual suspects.

Widespread surveillance of individuals who are not suspected of any crime is both antithetical to democracy and counterproductive to preventing terrorism.

[merrily]

129. Calling it surveillance dignifies it and makes it seem like something that has

always been done. Nothing to see here. Just local police, surveilling a suspect.

Big Brother on steroids is what it is.

[nxylas]

317. How many crimes were prevented by surveillance in Stalin's USSR or Hitler's Germany?

Was blanket surveillance a good thing there too?

(Cue the pearl-clutchers gasping "Yes, but surely you can't possibly believe that MURKA would ever use these powers for anything but good?&quot

[MADem]

225. But before they got to NYC to do it again...you do realize they were on their way to

cause even more mayhem, don't you?

Have you seen the pages of the NYC tabloids, the police blotters? They routinely use screen grabs from surveillance cameras to identify suspected criminals and ask the public to be on the lookout. Other apers do this as well.

It is common practice in most if not all states to show pictures taken from surveillance cameras of criminals on TV in an effort to track them down.

The time to crab about "surveillance," sorry to tell you, was about fifty or sixty years ago. The horse has left the barn. Most major cities and highways are continuously surveilled. If you don't want to appear on a surveillance camera, you're probably well advised to find yourself a cabin in a remote area with nothing more than a rough path cut in to get there, learn how to survive without store-bought goods, and stay there.

[Aerows]

240. Just because one horse got out of the barn because the door was open

doesn't mean that we should fail to rein in the rest of the herd and firmly close the door against future barn door storming.

[DirkGently]

40. That is a completely false comparison.

That is a very silly conflation of two completely different things. The Pulitzer-prizewining investigation into the NSA's unconstitutional spying program had exactly ZERO to do with using outdoor store security cameras to look for criminals on a public street.

[deurbano]

47. Exactly.

[ljm2002]

55. And yet we ignored specific warnings from Russia...

...about the older of the brothers, BEFORE the bombings happened.

Maybe if our surveillance agencies were not so busy MAKING THE HAYSTACK BIGGER, they might have paid attention to ACTUAL, ACTIVE WARNINGS.

Of course, it was Russia warning us. With all the "new Cold War" thinking out there, I guess that's enough justification for ignoring their specific warnings, and NOT EVEN MONITORING HIM.

I don't expect them to get it right all the time, or to be able to prevent every bad act. Nor do I advocate zero surveillance activity. But we had real, actionable intelligence on the guy that was ignored. So trying to use the Boston Marathon bombings as support for the surveillance state doesn't really work IMO.

[Aerows]

113. I don't think that anyone

with more than two brain cells to rub together (that isn't blinded by the personality cult, that is) believes the surveillance state is to "protect us". That kind of crap has never in the history of the world "protected" citizens. Examples throughout history are legion.

[GeorgeGist]

75. Apples and Oranges.

The surveillance video that 'caught' the Boston Bombers was from Lord & Taylor; a Department Store.

[Trajan]

85. This kind of thinking represents the WORST of the new DU

As if fanatical adherence to surveillance techniques is some sort of Liberal touchstone ...

Hogwash .... fucking hogwash , ...

Your kind of fascism is just as repugnant as any other kind ....

[JJChambers]

94. Thank you.

[bvar22]

141. "Your kind of fascism is just as repugnant as any other kind "

X 1000

I am a little disturbed that so many have found their way here.

[merrily]

106. The people who wrote the Constitution thought they had regulated how we use

surveillance technology. So did I.

You're okay with a US population of 350 million being surveilled six ways to Sunday continually and seven cities and towns under lock down to catch two people faster? In my book, that is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

BTW, the brothers had been fingered for us twice.

[treestar]

169. For the people who wrote the Constitution surveillance

was listening under the window. They had no idea of what we would be able to do later.

[merrily]

181. So? They protected US from being spied on for no specific reason.

What the specific technology was is not the point. Are you implying that, had they known that spying on 350 million USians was technologically possible, they would have written the constitution to permit that? If so, I strongly disagree.

They themselves had fairly recently been spying on the government and the government's military with an eye toward violent overthrow of the government by them. So, they were not writing in a vacuum.

[treestar]

216. I don't think they even thought about that

But they did deal with rebellions and would not have taken being informed about them amiss.

[merrily]

220. I am not sure what you you mean. What is it that you don't think they even thought about?

In what way did they deal with rebellions and which rebellions are you talking about?

Either way, government being informed about something is different from the government spying. The Constitution was clear about the latter, but says not a word about private citizens informing the government.

And if you think they would not have taken government spying amiss, your view simply cannot stand up to the wording and history of the 4th amend.

What I think they would have taken amiss most of all is the shit to which we are being subjected. If you disagree, then we disagree.

[Aerows]

235. Remember the underwear bomber?

He was alerted several times. But hey, Chertoff had to have an excuse to sell the Rapiscan machines.

[Jesus Malverde]

365. + a bunch

[Logical]

298. Says the pro police DUer nt

[Boreal]

316. Whatever happened in Boston

it was RUSSIA who alerted the US, well in advance of the event, not the NSA.

[Jesus Malverde]

366. And it was a civilian who found and reported the bomber

After the cower in place order was lifted.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

321. The United States of Police. . .I like the sound of that too.

Let's give up all pretense of Civil Liberties. The constitution is just a god damned piece of paper anyway.

[sabrina 1]

337. That tragedy highlighted the fact that the destruction of our Constitutional rights based on the

false claim it was to 'catch terrorists' was simply a LIE. IF the lies they have been telling had been true, that is ONE Terrorist who would have been stopped. Not only was he on the radar, warnings were issued regarding his associations with extremists which apparently were ignored. At that point surely HIS 'data' should have been monitored.

Time to end these policies considering it is now clear they never were intended to stop terrorists but were intended to enrich Private Security Contractors, cynically using 9/11 to do so, such as Booz Allen eg, and many, many more, who have made BILLIONS on the scam. Clapper a former Booz Allen CEO and Bush loyalist should NEVER have been placed in a position where he had a clear conflict of interest, ie, to keep the 'terror' money flowing, using the authority of the powerful position he somehow managed to retain even AFTER we threw them all out, Republicans I mean.

The whole thing is disgusting and tragic.

[whatchamacallit]

382. HAIL HYDRA!

[Sunlei]

54. We are all against that crap. Every law put in place 11 days after 9/11 should be abolished.

But we don't go out and 'find' some cushie job where there is access to protected files and take them. And then share those files with how many people?? and run out of the country.

He is in trouble because of what he did, he broke a lot of laws.

Maybe he will make some deal with the Feds where he gets immunity in return for information on who got him those jobs. He did not act alone.

[erronis]

70. I think your timeline and causality are seriously bonkered

From what I've read, Mr. Snowden had jobs that allowed him to see a large amount of (semi)classified information. It was seeing this information that made him realize that it demonstrated a violation of the US laws and the information should be disseminated. There were (and I'm sure this is still true) no avenues for Mr. Snowden to bring his understanding of the problem up the chain of command without him risking personal harm. He couldn't be a government whistleblower - for what protection that's worth - since he was a private contractor.

There are a lot of conflicting laws that deal with secrecy and upholding the laws of the US. Which ones are you talking about? Are you willing to have most of the Bush2 administration go before a court to explain their selective airing of TS info?

I also believe that he did not act alone. We already understand that many news organizations have willingly helped Mr. Snowden get this information into the public view. Many other individuals with conscience have put themselves in harms way to disclose the crimes of government. I hope more of us can do this. And I hope that our new media (not MSM) can keep on letting us know about these crimes.

[Dragonfli]

271. I understand where you are coming from, but whistle blowers have been forced into breaking laws.

If self preservation is even a minor consideration to a modern whistle blower he/she must adapt to the extreme danger of torture, illegal indefinite detention and other dangers which I don't even wish to consider, and this truth is well known to them.

If you wish to expose illegal activities perpetrated by the government you are forced into extreme corners such as fleeing the country. Only a fool would try to expose criminality in an atmosphere where those exposing crimes are treated like the mob would treat an informant. There is no more going through channels! You should add to your list of laws that should be abolished a new law that should be added to protect those that expose criminals, serious whistle blower laws that allow for reporting on criminal activity without a war being declared on one.

I suggest you learn more about current state of affairs. If you have a Netflix account or lacking that you do not mind signing up for the free month I would suggest starting with this informative offering: (picture is link)

[Recursion]

308. Drake revealed what Snowden did. Got a misdemeanor conviction

which he admits is something he did. He didn't do this gonzo leaking thing. But, the President was a white Republican then, so people cared less.

Then again, Drake didn't also shield the CIA from disclosures, like former CIA agent Snowden did.

[KoKo]

340. Recommend! Good to know it is up on Netflix...

[dead_head]

45. Comrade?

I thought the USSR is over. Russia are'nt commies. So even the childish name calling it's not funny.

I don't post often here because I'm not as educated as people around here. But I did post on the topic of ¨wooooo¨ and conspiracy theories following Mike Ruppert's suicide.

What bugs me (and it's the same pattern) is the petty name calling in order to dismiss something without arguments.

I have read post about ¨you either fully believe in science or you don't¨ You have to believe everything the government says or your like ALex Jones.

Now it's if you like Snowden, you are a commie it seems. And you can't talk about the fact they tortured Manning or that Americans are being monitored.

Maybe I'm dumb but I guess if a russian would have fled the USSR for the USA because of what he knew the government was doing, those same type of people in USSR would call him a ¨capitalist pig¨


Sad

[zeemike]

105. Not dumb at all.

And don't ever call yourself that again....that is an order.
And welcome to DU.

[grasswire]

234. a warm welcome to DU

I don't see anything dumb about your post. Thanks for your two cents, friend.

[Aerows]

237. Welcome to DU

and you are far from "dumb" in your assessment. You are right on the money.

[DirkGently]

292. Excellent. And welcome! n/t

[nikto]

294. Looks more foolish to who?

You, 6 other people (1 is Dick Cheney), and the NSA.

Big crowd you got there.

[Union Scribe]

3. It makes it easy to tell whose opinions

are worth considering and whose are the rantings of angry adolescents. The lame nicknames assigned to people, including anyone to the left of Clinton, are like giant neon signs that say "I'm not a serious person so don't bother reasoning with me."

[Dragonfli]

44. I should have read through the responses before adding my own,

after your post mine is redundant. We appear to be in complete agreement regarding childish name calling as "argument"

[snappyturtle]

144. +1 nt

[sendero]

211. Exactly..

... another thread useful to identify the fools and add them to your Ignore list. People who don't understand the very linchpins of what our founding fathers did and why they did it have nothing to say that I care to hear.

[Autumn]

4. Embrace the meaning of "Comrade"

Comrade: The most beautiful greeting in the word. A true worker's word. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=comrade

Comrade: a close friend you have worked with, been in the military with, etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comrade

and enjoy the stupidity that is rampant in their hatred.

[Maedhros]

101. The delicious irony of it is that it attempts to smear Snowden with a Cold War Era slur,

implying that Snowden is a communist, when Russia is a predatory capitalist country.

Just shows how short-sighted, out-of-touch and foolish are the people that use it.

[Autumn]

115. I love it. I see that and I just laugh.

I think calling them short-sighted, out-of-touch and foolish is a mild description .

[Maedhros]

121. It's. Just. So. Fucking. Stupid.

It burns.

[Autumn]

132. To put it bluntly, the one who coined Comrade Eddie isn't the smartest tool in the shed.

[Aerows]

245. But competes desperately to

be the brightest crayon in the box. And still fails.

[Aerows]

244. Some of the posts in all of these threads

would make bathing in sulfuric acid with intelligence added preferable to a weekend spa treatment.

[pscot]

5. My country right or wrong, eh

An infamous sentiment, but widely held, even on this "liberal" website.

[unreadierLizard]

7. That's the attitude of some.

I just can't believe the same people who I saw rightfully calling out the Patriot Act now run up in droves to defend the NSA's spying just because there's a (D) next to the President's name.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. If Snowden had revealed all that information while Bush was President,

DU would be united in its condemnation of the CIA, NSA, etc. Some people around here are just afraid that it makes Obama look bad, so they're defending all that shit. Obama has defended it, so they defend it. It's sad how far people will go when they're more loyal to a man than they are to the Constitution and the ideals this country was founded upon.

I could understand people saying that Obama is afraid for his life to go against the intelligence community. But coming on here defending all the spying and storing of data our government does just because Obama pays lip service to it is going too far. I don't know if Obama doesn't have the courage to fight the intelligence agencies or if he's a true believer in what they do, but I don't see how a liberal can defend him on this issue. He's wrong; that's all there is to it.

[DirkGently]

42. But how stupid is it to make the NSA scandal about "Obama?"

Jesus. I really have a hard time believing anyone actually wanting to support Dems or the President would think for an instant that throwing mountains of silly, disingenuous attacks at the uncovering of government wrongdoing somehow helps them.

Rightwingers smear the messenger and call people traitors and all that bullshit.

We're supposed to be smarter than that.

[Aerows]

71. Anyone who offers

nothing but blind allegiance to a politician instead of to policy and law is by definition not very smart.

[grasswire]

236. sound and fury, signifying nothing

No minds are being changed by the nicknames and the giggles and the ROFL and the downright vicious attacks. The effort to protect the surveillance state is simply wasted here.

I even think that this effort damages Obama. It turns people off to see his most enthusiastic supporters engage in this dirty circus. People who otherwise are prone to like him are disgusted by what they witness here.

[A Simple Game]

41. I wouldn't feel so bad if it was "My country right or wrong".

But it's not, it's my President or my party right or wrong. Country takes a back seat.

Now their going off the deep end because Putin is treating Snowden the way President Obama should be treating him if he really cared about the constitution and put our Country first.

[pscot]

43. There's that

[Aerows]

78. You could have stopped at

My President, right or wrong, because the folks that most virulently and harshly defend anything Obama says, does or indicates that he supports cheerfully throw even strong Democrats under the bus if they sway from the narrative that Obama is infallible. A hint of criticism, and that politician, person or organization is instantly Persona non Grata.

[bvar22]

148. For Example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218


CENTRISM!!!!
...because it is so damned EASY.
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!!!

[L0oniX]

260. Damn ...you really get it.

[Marr]

385. I love how that post has 20 rec's.

It's always roughly 20 people who back that sentiment (and sometimes an assortment of socks).

[bvar22]

386. The same 20 people....

Fewer if you don't count obvious socks as.
If you go to the link, you can press the Thread Info button and see exactly who they are.
You won't be surprised.
They call themselves "Supporters of the President."
I call them something else.

[Bobbie Jo]

388. Hey, you guys meet me at my locker after

4th period! I've GOT to tell you what Megan said about Alissa!!

OMG!!

[merrily]

203. They admitted that Obama was wrong?

[Aerows]

345. No, and I guess that was a foolish thing for me to state.

My President. Right. Always. - That's more like it.

[merrily]

200. Okay.

Originally Stephen Decatur, in an after-dinner toast of 1816–1820:

“Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!”

Later stated by, and often attributed to, Carl Schurz, 1872.[1]

“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/my_country,_right_or_wrong

Decatur was not addressing violations of the Constitution by the US, but matters of judgment in foreign relations.

Shurz was not in the mood to allow the country to be wrong.

In any event, invoking "My country right or wrong" requires the speaker to at least admit that wrong is being done. Here, it's nothing but denial, rationalizations, false equivalences, etc. I've yet to see anyone say outright that we're doing wrong, but so what, they'll be devoted anyway.

[grasswire]

238. just want to say that I appreciate your contributions here.

Thanks.

[merrily]

364. Wow, thank you!

I am extremely bad at recalling who posts what. Sometimes, that is a good thing, as I try hard not to carry a grudge against another poster from one thread to another and not always remembering who insulting me last week helps that.

I'd attribute it to getting older, but I have been bad at names all my life, even people I've met in person.

However, despite my sometimes beneficial blind spots, I had begun to associate your screen name with leftist posts and I appreciate persistently leftist posters. So, back at you.

[DirkGently]

291. Very apropos.

[L0oniX]

258. Same as saying "My mother ...drunk or sober".

Obviously some people don't mind our country turning on itself either. The founders of our country and their ideas were fine for back then but we are sooo much more enlightened now that we don't need their wisdom. Not me ...I admire and respect them and their very wise words and warnings. What's really a joke is the Patriot Act which IMO is the farthest thing from being patriotic unless being patriot is just being an idiot ...which it seems to be most of the time. Our democracy is an illusion and a lot of people here just don't get it. We get the mindless vote Dem meme. Our country founders would never have promoted that sort of garbage. ...but then I am on a rant here so I'll stop.

[Zorra]

6. Aw, c'mon, give 'em a break, They're just kids.

[B Calm]

8. Comrade Eddie the darling of the Tea Party!

[unreadierLizard]

10. It doesn't matter if he was a neo-Nazi, FFS.

Doesn't make the NSA's spying any less true.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. I consider Eddy more my "comrade" than the NSA.

[840high]

232. ....

[Octafish]

11. Well stated, unreadierLizard.

On one side stand those OUTRAGED by a man who violated his sacred oath to Booze Allen Hamilton, a subsidiary of Carlyle Group.

On the other are those outraged by what the guy exposed: illegal NSA spying on America.

Hmmm. Which is worse?

The late Sen. Frank Church warned us in 1975. Who was he?

Frank Church was a patriot, a hero and a statesman, truly a great American.

The guy also led the last real investigation of CIA, NSA and FBI. When it came to NSA Tech circa 1975, he definitely knew what he was talking about:

“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

-- Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) FDR New Deal, Liberal, Progressive, World War II combat veteran. A brave man, the NSA was turned on him. Coincidentally, he narrowly lost re-election a few years later.

Newly minted CIA director George Herbert Walker Bush would help shut down the investigation by making a case that former agents leaked the CIA station chief in Greece's name. Of course, no one brought up the point that the man's name was well known before any leaks.

And what happened to Church, for his trouble to preserve Democracy:

In 1980, Church will lose re-election to the Senate in part because of accusations of his committee’s responsibility for Welch’s death by his Republican opponent, Jim McClure.

SOURCE: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frank_church_1

Church was a brave man, stood up to NAZIs. Bet he couldn't stand bullies.

[pnwmom]

18. I am not outraged that he revealed spying on Americans. I am very angry

that he revealed our spying on foreign countries, which is what the CIA and NSA are supposed to do. He himself was furious in 2008 when there were leaks about our spying on Iran. But somehow it's supposed to be okay when he leaks about our foreign spying.

[Octafish]

24. Yeah, like no one ever heard of ECHELON.

Yet, they did, back in 1988.

http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/CAQ59GlobalSnoop.html

[pnwmom]

32. So what? This doesn't excuse what Snowden did. n't

[Octafish]

103. Snowden blew the whistle on Booz Allen Hamilton and its treasons on behalf of NSA.

He didn't betray the country.

[DirkGently]

288. Apparently that's only a good thing when it's 100% politically convenient.

[nenagh]

61. Thanks for the link Octafish.... I knew very little about it...

Nicky Hager's book 'Secret Power: New Zealand's Role in the International Spy Network' (at your link) is $115.00 (new) on Amazon.com..

but can be downloaded for free as an e-book from Nicky Hager's website.

I cannot thank you enough... however, as I read the extract from the link you posted... I find myself actually feeling shaky. It's alarming.

Nicky Hager says ECHELON "is designed primarily for non-military targets: governments, organizations, businesses and individuals in virtually every country."

Do we suspect that business information was sent from Booz Allen directly to the Carlyle Group? and that Edward Snowden, high school drop-out, showed how leaky the security was at the Booz Allen facility?

Thanks again for the link..

[erronis]

86. Yes - you have it pegged.

Much contrary to the automated protestations that arise from these agencies when their drawers are photographed around their knees...

We (the USofA) pretend that we are concerned about other countries' military capabilities (or "human rights" or whatnot).

But in reality what the US agencies are really concerned about is making sure that the mega-corps that are nominally US-based can compete/dominate against other countries.

Of course we have naively started this mega-trade war when we were young and flexing our adolescent muscles (1960-1980). Our main adversaries were "Old Europe", the "USSR", and Chairman Mao's vision for China.

Now we have many formidable adversaries including the old ones that we "dissed". Our leadership is essentially dead and paid for, our industries are decrepit, our workforce is demoralized and unable to pay their rents to the oligarchs.

Whatever should we do? Wail and flagelate?

Post self-back-patting replies like this one?

Stop funding the people that are raping us?

[grasswire]

241. warm welcome to DU

Keep posting! We have a good conversation going here.

[Octafish]

325. All move toward the goal of restoring Justice, incessantly.

We know many of their names and a lot of what they've done. Even just mentioning them to people who may or may not know -- Somehow the information environment changes every time we bring their wrongdoing to light. For example, WikiLeaks brought to light many examples of the US Govt-Big Business symbiosis for private gain.

"What has Wikileaks ever taught us?" ... Read on ...

How often have we been told in world-weary tones that Wikileaks has revealed nothing new - especially by those who want to appear to be in the know? Here is an aide-mémoire of a few of the highest profile revelations.

RYAN GALLAGHER
OpenDemocracy.net, 17 February 2011

Since 2006, whistleblower website WikiLeaks has published a mass of information we would otherwise not have known. The leaks have exposed dubious procedures at Guantanamo Bay and detailed meticulously the Iraq War's unprecedented civilian death-toll. They have highlighted the dumping of toxic waste in Africa as well as revealed America's clandestine military actions in Yemen and Pakistan.

The sheer scope and significance of the revelations is shocking. Among them are great abuses of power, corruption, lies and war crimes. Yet there are still some who insist WikiLeaks has "told us nothing new". This collection, sourced from a range of publications across the web, illustrates nothing could be further from the truth. Here, if there is still a grain of doubt in your mind, is just some of what WikiLeaks has told us:

American planes bombed a village in Southern Yemen in December 2009, killing 14 women and 21 children (see Amnesty)

The Secretary of State's office encouraged US diplomats at the United Nations to spy on their counterparts by collecting biographic & biometric information (see Wired.com)

The Obama administration worked with Republicans to protect Bush administration officials facing a criminal investigation into torture (see Mother Jones)

A US Army helicopter gunned down two Reuters journalists in Baghdad in 2007 (see Reuters)
US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers (see the Guardian)

In Iraq there were scores of claims of prison abuse by coalition forces even after the Abu Ghraib scandal (see the Bureau of Investigative Journalism)

Afghan President Hamid Karzai freed suspected drug dealers because of their political connections (see CBS News)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed support for the concept of “land swaps” (see Yahoo News)

The United States was secretly given permission from Yemen's president to attack the Al-Qaeda group in his country (see the Guardian)

Then-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and his top commanders repeatedly knowingly lied to the American public about rising sectarian violence in Iraq beginning in 2006 (see the Daily Beast)

The US was shipping arms to Saudi Arabia for use in northern Yemen even as it denied any role in the conflict (see Salon.com)

Saudi Arabia is one of the largest origin points for funds supporting international terrorism (see the Guardian

A storage facility housing Yemen's radioactive material was unsecured for up to a week (see Bloomberg)

Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, fearing it was built to make a bomb (see the Sunday Times)

Top officials in several Arab countries have close links with the CIA (see the Peninsula)

Swiss company Trafigura Beheer BV dumped toxic waste at the Ivorian port of Abidjan, then attempted to silence the press from revealing it by obtaining a gagging order (see WikiLeaks)

Pakistan's government has allowed members of its spy network to hold strategy sessions on combating American troops with members of the Taliban (see the New York Times)

A stash of highly enriched uranium capable of providing enough material for multiple "dirty bombs" has been waiting in Pakistan for removal by an American team for more than three years (see CBS News)

US military Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations inside Pakistan, despite repeated denials from US officials (see the Nation)

China was behind the online attack on Google (see ZDNet)

North Korea is secretly helping the military dictatorship in Myanmar build nuclear and missile sites in its jungles (see CBS News)

The Indian government "condones torture" and systematically abused detainees in the disputed region of Kashmir (see CBS News)

The British government has been training a Bangladeshi paramilitary force condemned by human rights organisations as a "government death squad" (see the Guardian)

BP suffered a blowout after a gas leak in the Caucasus country of Azerbaijan in September 2008, a year and a half before another BP blowout killed 11 workers (see the Guardian)

Saudi Arabia's rulers have deep distrust for some fellow Muslim countries, especially Pakistan and Iran (see CBS News)
Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran (see the Guardian)

Iranian Red Crescent ambulances were used to smuggle weapons to Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group during its 2006 war with Israel (see CBS News)

Dozens of US tactical nuclear weapons are in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium (see Jerusalem Post)

The Libyan government promised "enormous repercussions" for the UK if the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, was not handled properly (see CBS News)

Pope Benedict impeded an investigation into alleged child sex abuse within the Catholic Church (see MSNBC)

Sinn Fein leaders Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness carried out negotiations for the Good Friday agreement with Irish then-prime minister Bertie Ahern while the two had knowledge of a bank robbery the Irish Republican Army was planning to carry out (see CBS News)

Anglo-Dutch oil giant Royal Dutch Shell PLC has infiltrated the highest levels of government in Nigeria (see the Guardian)

A US official was told by Mexican President Felipe Calderon that Latin America "needs a visible US presence" to counter
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's growing influence in the region (see Yahoo News)

Cuba's economic situation could become "fatal" within two to three years (see Business Week)

McDonald's tried to delay the US government's implementation of a free-trade agreement in order to put pressure on El Salvador to appoint neutral judges in a $24m lawsuit it was fighting in the country (see the Guardian)

British officials made a deal with the US to allow the country to keep cluster bombs in the UK despite the ban on the munitions signed by Gordon Brown (see Politics.co.uk)

The British government promised to protect America's interests during the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war (see the Guardian)

The US government was acting on behalf of GM crop firm Monsanto in 2008, when the US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops (see the Guardian)

Pfitzer tested anti-biotics on Nigerian children, contravening national and international standards on medical ethics (see Medical News Today)

Prisoners at Camp Delta (Guantanamo Bay) were denied access to the Red Cross for up to four weeks (see the Telegraph)

More than 66,000 civilians suffered “violent deaths” in Iraq between 2004 and the end of 2009 (see the Telegraph)

Russia is a “virtual mafia state” with rampant corruption and scant separation between the activities of the government and organised crime (see the Guardian)

The Obama administration tried to “sweet-talk” other countries in to taking Guantanamo detainees, as part of its (as yet unsuccessful) effort to close the prison (see the New York Times)

Cross posted with the Frontline Club. Open Source

SOURCE (w links): http://www.opendemocracy.net/ryan-gallagher/what-has-wikileaks-ever-taught-us-read-on

That's just a tiny fraction, of course. If you get a moment, you may enjoy a collage of the players who got caught -- and some of the higher-ups who await trial -- toward the end of Baby Doc Bush's reign, Know your BFEE: WikiLeaks Stratfor Dump Exposes Continued Secret Government Warmongering.

Thank you, erronis, for understanding what this is about. A hearty welcome to DU! Please give Them the What's For!

[Octafish]

102. If Carlyle owned the Means, odds are they would want to know about the Take.

That's the charm of Capitalism, self-interest.



Behind the Curtain: Booz Allen Hamilton and its Owner, The Carlyle Group

Written by Bob Adelmann
The New American; June 13, 2013

According to writers Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer at the Washington Post, The Carlyle Group and its errant child, Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), have a public relations problem, thanks to NSA leaker and former BAH employee Edward Snowden. By the time top management at BAH learned that one of their top level agents had gone rogue, and terminated his employment, it was too late.

For years Carlyle had, according to the Post, “nurtured a reputation as a financially sophisticated asset manager that buys and sells everything from railroads to oil refineries”; but now the light from the Snowden revelations has revealed nothing more than two companies, parent and child, “bound by the thread of turning government secrets into profits.”

And have they ever. When The Carlyle Group bought BAH back in 2008, it was totally dependent upon government contracts in the fields of information technology (IT) and systems engineering for its bread and butter. But there wasn't much butter: After two years the company’s gross revenues were $5.1 billion but net profits were a minuscule $25 million, close to a rounding error on the company’s financial statement. In 2012, however, BAH grossed $5.8 billion and showed earnings of $219 million, nearly a nine-fold increase in net revenues and a nice gain in value for Carlyle.

Unwittingly, the Post authors exposed the real reason for the jump in profitability: close ties and interconnected relationships between top people at Carlyle and BAH, and the agencies with which they are working. The authors quoted George Price, an equity analyst at BB&T Capital: "[Booz Allen has] got a great brand, they've focused over time on hiring top people, including bringing on people who have a lot of senior government experience." (Emphasis added.)

For instance, James Clapper had a stint at BAH before becoming the current Director of National Intelligence; George Little consulted with BAH before taking a position at the Central Intelligence Agency; John McConnell, now vice chairman at BAH, was director of the National Security Agency (NSA) in the ‘90s before moving up to director of national intelligence in 2007; Todd Park began his career with BAH and now serves as the country's chief technology officer; James Woolsey, currently a senior vice president at BAH, served in the past as director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and so on.

BAH has had more than a little problem with self-dealing and conflicts of interest over the years. For instance in 2006 the European Commission asked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Privacy International (PI) to investigate BAH’s involvement with President George Bush’s SWIFT surveillance program, which was viewed by that administration as “just another tool” in its so-called “War on Terror.” The only problem is that it was illegal, as it violated U.S., Belgian, and European privacy laws. BAH was right in the middle of it. According to the ACLU/PI report,

Though Booz Allen’s role is to verify that the access to the SWIFT data is not abused, its relationship with the U.S. Government calls its objectivity significantly into question. (Emphasis added.)

Among Booz Allen’s senior consulting staff are several former members of the intelligence community, including a former Director of the CIA and a former director of the NSA.

As noted by Barry Steinhardt, an ACLU director, “It’s bad enough that the [Bush] administration is trying to hold out a private company as a substitute for genuine checks and balances on its surveillance activities. But of all companies to perform audits on a secret surveillance program, it would be difficult to find one less objective and more intertwined with the U.S. government security establishment.” (Emphasis added.)

CONTINUED w Links n Privatized INTEL...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15696-behind-the-curtain-booz-allen-hamilton-and-its-owner-the-carlyle-group

PS: Thank you, nenagh, for the heads-up on Hager's tome. I will viddy well.

PPS: Here's the scariest thing that everyone needs to remember...As for ECHELON's higher purpose: Get the goods on everybody, should the need arise, for the Big Round Up.

[nenagh]

265. Thank you Octafish again for all the reading material...

although I find it nearly painful to read.

'Carlyle had "nurtured a reputation as a financially sophisticated asset manager"...but now the light of the Snowden revelations has revealed nothing more than two companies ..."bound by the thread of turning government secrets into profits"

A veritable Rumpelstiltskinian arrangement and one can only think of dark and darker manipulations.

And, as you say, get the goods on everybody: think Eliot Spitzer for one.

I am always so pleasantly surprised that Edward Snowden, not only has the technical knowledge and the courage to do what he did... but he is also a thoughtful man with excellent verbal ability. Well, that is my impression.

The two are not necessarily found together... the English exam at the local University often causes quite a lot of angst among many Engineering students.. who may have good visualization and mathematical ability... but the written word? Not so much.

I always get such a chuckle out of the fact that "high school drop out" has not been used as a slight against Edward Snowden, since the early days. Poor optics.

Thanks again for the reading material.. You know, it strikes me how easy it was to put my head in the sand during all the time I was working. Well I did read Antonia Juhasz "The Bu$h Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time" but by the time I read about the economic changes put in place by Bremmer, Iraq had become too unsafe to implement the changes envisioned, I think..

It seems we can be easily bamboozled by flag waving instead of thinking as you so wisely said: "If Carlyle owns the Means odds are they would want to know about the Take."

[A Simple Game]

48. I will bet that you knew we were spying on foreign countries even before Snowden told you.

I knew, so did everyone else. He told them nothing they didn't already know, but you knew that didn't you? Do you suppose Russia and China are just sitting there and not returning the favor?

Your fake rage doesn't fool anyone.

[merrily]

206. Of course they knew. Not only has it been Spy vs. Spy for like forever, but, on the other

side of the coin, they are all cooperating with each other because terra.

Notice: Angela Merkel complained about her cell phone only after the German people flipped out about US spying.

And she complained ONLY about her personal cell phone. Not a word about her office phone or any official phone in her country.

In fact, I think I once posted the above to pwnmom, though I cannot swear to it.

[pnwmom]

208. We didn't know the specifics. Knowing in an abstract way is very different

from knowing exactly who and when and where.

[A Simple Game]

323. Maybe we didn't "know the specifics", but I bet China and Russia already knew them.

Do you really think we are that advanced over everyone else? They probably know what the NSA is going to do before they do it. They expect us to spy on them and I doubt that they even care that we are doing it.

[frylock]

138. because up to that point, other countries had no idea that we were spying on them

[Aerows]

351. It's the equivalent of

"I'm shocked, shocked, shocked that people knew gambling was going on here!"

[erronis]

76. +1 - There are very few Frank Church's left in our government now

[ancianita]

12. What DU people keep overlooking is that the US would stop him once he's outside Russian airspace.

No matter what country would take him, he'd never be allowed to get there.

Look at what the US did to Bolivia's president, and you now see why Snowden is safe staying within Russia. At least for now.

Even if Snowden HAD snuck into any of those countries successfully, the US would have swooped in and renditioned him back. Easily.

[The Straight Story]

14. People believe if you make him look bad you gain something

I have pretty much stayed out of all these threads about him because I couldn't care less if he was the love child of the pope and Margaret Thatcher. He shed some light on the government that they sure as hell didn't want shown (this from the people who want to know just about everything they can about you, no fly lists, spying, illegal wars, etc).

And for those who think he made Obama look bad, is a tool of the right, etc and so on...Obama is one man in the vastness that is our government. He is not a king, he has only 24 hours in the day like the rest of us, and I don't expect him anymore than I did bush to know every little thing going on in the government (how many agencies/employees are there?). He doesn't need to micro manage - if you want to bust his butt over something it would be his choices of managers and their abilities to effectively do the job he believed they could (though we all know quite a few people land those jobs not based on their ability but who they know - same with a lot of companies).

The only thing that really bothers me in it all is this back and forth is people thinking that if they make him look bad in some way it erases the information leaked and/or absolves people of wrongdoing.

I am more like grumpy cat - I don't really like most anyone so smearing them to get me to not listen to what they have said/will say doesn't really make a difference to me. Either their words/actions stand on their own or they don't - and actions don't always play a role either (You can find out x had an affair with y and it won't detract from their ideals of z because ideals are not related to other things).

[pnwmom]

15. It's not as though anyone can be certain the whole trip to Hong Kong wasn't a charade

with Russia being the end-goal all along. It wouldn't be the first time Russia has recruited someone from our intelligence community.

[JDPriestly]

50. And the antics with the Bolivian president's plane and the physical and very real attempts

to prevent Snowden from leaving Russian airspace? Were they also a charade? Was our government complicit with Snowden's charade of going to Russia and getting trapped there?

Where in the world is reason in this conversation?

It is absurd to think that Snowden had chosen Russia as is place of asylum before he arrived there. Just absurd. He landed there because he couldn't go anywhere else.

There are only two countries in the world in which an American whistleblower like Snowden can expect to be protected from the US government, only two countries big enough and strong enough to make it not worth the while for the US to go after a fugitive whistleblower within their borders: China and Russia.

A whistleblower might be able to hide in Brazil somewhere out in the jungle, but even that would not be a safe haven.

Once Snowden chose to be a whistleblower, his choices as to where to seek asylum were pretty narrow.

So that is why Snowden is in Russia. Snowden's revelations about the NSA spying serves the purposes of the Constitution which is the highest law of the land.

And no, some of what the NSA is doing is not lawful.

We have a right to privacy as to those things with regard to which we have an expectation of privacy: the interior of our homes, for example. I don't know about you, but I lock my doors. That is an expression of my expectation of privacy with regard to my house. Similarly, I have a password for my e-mails and for certain websites that I use. That is an expression, a proof if you will, of my expectation of privacy as to those extensions of my home. I have the right, under the Constitution, of free association with others. I have an expectation, thanks to that constitutional right of privacy in my communications and associations with others. In the absence of suspicion of wrongdoing, the government should not follow us around to see with whom we are associating. That would be a violation of the Constitution. It has happened, but it would violate the Constitution. Further, the government should not send agents to churches to see whether you are attending this one or that one. That's because we have freedom of religion. It is none of the NSA's or government's business with whom you meet, what church or other religious group you attend, what you write in your e-mails, or things you do in websites where your personal information is posted and where you have a password to protect the privacy of your identification.

1984 is here. It came and went. And sadly, Orwell predicted correctly the coming of the control-and-surveillance-state. Very sad that people don't see what has happened. Very sad.

When I see people criticize Snowden rather than the NSA, it makes me very sad. The NSA is the bad guy here. Violating our rights all over the place. That people don't understand what is happening to them is just too sad for words.

[DirkGently]

284. Obviously you have not seen the "map" of the Bolivian thing.

It clearly showed the Barnes & Noble three miles over from the Alehouse.

[Dragonfli]

52. cool CT bro!

[frylock]

139. get fucking real..

if there were any connection to Snowden and the Russian intelligence agencies, Clapper would be front and center touting that evidence.

[pnwmom]

207. Yeah, and if there were any connection, Snowden would be on TV with Putin,

getting him to go on about how much better Russia is.

[stonecutter357]

314. this^

[truebrit71]

16. The Swarm will not tolerate anyone that threatens the legacy...

...of this Democratic president. He would be widely hailed as an American hero if he'd have done this when shrub was in power, our under any other republican president for that matter. Their lockstep hypocrisy would be amusing if it weren't done with such dimwitted seriousness..

[Jakes Progress]

81. You nailed it.

They don't care about policy or anything but their precious.

[bvar22]

153. For Example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

CENTRISM!!!
...because it is so damned EASY.
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!

[grahamhgreen]

313. Nice clip art.

[treestar]

174. Not true

I would not want anyone spilling our intelligence to foreign countries, ever.

And Bush did not use warrants. The fans of Comrade Eddie refuse to give Obama credit for going back to the warrants.

And they exaggerate so badly. You'd think Eddie saved the Republic.

He does choose to stay in Russia. As long as they allow him there. He could come back here. And the idea that he would be treated wrongly and outside our legal system is silly exaggeration.

[malokvale77]

269. The sad part is...

You actually believe this: "He could come back here. And the idea that he would be treated wrongly and outside our legal system is silly exaggeration."

[GoneFishin]

277. +1. Sad indeed.

[Tanuki]

17. True. Snowden, who was a two-time donor to the Ron Paul campaign, and who despises the New Deal,

hardly deserves the designation of "Comrade."
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe
...."save money? cut this social security bullshit"
..." Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine"
.... "Magically the world changed after the new deal, and old people became made of glass."
....[the elderly] “wouldn’t be fucking helpless if you weren’t sending them fucking checks to sit on their ass and lay in hospitals all day.” (see link for more insight into Snowden's social consciousness, in his own words)

[Drunken Irishman]

30. LOL

[B Calm]

36. Ron Paul supporter

[2banon]

68. So Snowden was a dumb fuck reactionary? So what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? n/t

[frylock]

142. and Hillary Rodham was a Goldwater girl

[nashville_brook]

198. ^^you'd think folks would be all over that, if ideological purity meant that much to them.

of course, it means very little. which is why no one screams about Hillary campaigning for Goldwater.

[Tanuki]

221. Maybe it's because HRC was 17 at the time, and quickly changed her thinking as soon as she

went to college and was exposed to a broader range of ideas than she had known up to then.
Whereas Snowden was donating to Ron Paul at least as recently as 2012, and if he has rethought his expressed contempt for Franklin Roosevelt's progressive legacy I haven't heard about it.

[Maedhros]

381. The proper response to all of that is: so what?

The issue is the NSA abusing the Constitution and the politicians that allow the NSA to continue doing so. Snowden released information that revealed the actions of the NSA. Snowden's imagined motivations for doing so are completely, absolutely irrelevant.

Debating Snowden's motives serves only to distract from the real issue and give cover to the criminals involved.

[freshwest]

212. Read the entire article. Thanks for bringing it here. n/t

[Jamaal510]

268. +1

[Recursion]

309. Snowden was also a CIA agent. Who revealed nothing about the CIA

And whose revelations about the CIA's chief rival agency have done more to help the CIA than anything in the last 50 years.

[Progressive dog]

20. So, can I still call him Moscow Eddie,

or would that also be upsetting to his fan base?

[Dragonfli]

275. Feel free to sound as childish and stupid as you like. Perhaps "poopy head"

should be considered as a well thought out argument as well? Your infantilism does not upset me, it helps me to understand your level of communication skills.

[Progressive dog]

322. His name is Eddie and he fled to Moscow

so Moscow Eddie is descriptive of Snowden. It is not an argument, infantile or otherwise.

[Dragonfli]

347. I would respond with an obvious answer but we have already established you don't like that

[Progressive dog]

379. I thought we were discussing Moscow Eddie

[LanternWaste]

377. He's also right-handed, yet I see no one referring to him that particular and wholly accurate descri

He's also right-handed, yet I see no one referring to him that particular and wholly accurate descriptor.

There's nothing wrong with an admission that you're petulance outweighs your objectivity... it happens to everyone every once in a while. Rationalizing that petulance as something other than it's not though, says much less about the object, and much more about the speaker.




(insert absurd rationalization here to validate the petulance)

[Progressive dog]

378. Lots of people are right handed,

very few have fled the US for Moscow. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the only one named Eddie.

[seveneyes]

21. Snowden had the misfortune of doing his duty under a Democratic administration

People can be fickle sometimes.

[cthulu2016]

25. Agreed. That shit is indicative of a defect of character.

It is fine to hold a negative view of Snowden, but the entire Russia angle is just MaCarthyism for folks who are sad to have missed it the first time around.

And I am a raging critic of Russia and the American pro-Russian segment of the nut-left (which is a real segment, but thankfully kind of small).

[DirkGently]

26. Yeah, they're just smarting from that Pulitzer.

The Greenwald smarm didn't work. The Bolivian plane maps didn't work. The "something something FISA makes it okay and who-cares-about-the-government-stealing-your-data" didn't work.

So we're back to a version of the pole-dancing girlfriend attacks on the original messenger.

Hey guys! MAYBE the fact that we blocked Snowden from every other possible refuge from the (totally justified!) water boarding that awaits him if he ever returns to the U.S. can turn Snowden into a COMMIE! Because, you know, Putin is a pretty bad guy, and Putin is in Russia, and Snowden is in Russia, so ... something something TRAITOR!

It's not working, but it's pretty funny to watch.

[Chan790]

28. "if Snowden had leaked these documents with, say, President John McCain or Mitt Romney..."

I, for one, wouldn't. I believe that people charged with treason or espionage should be treated exactly the same regardless who the President is.

I believe in the rule of law--everybody gets their day in court and a fair trial; the guilty shouldn't go free because some cheer their illegal acts anymore then the innocent should be incarcerated resulting from over-zealousness and injustice; and sentences must be reasonable and proportionate to their crimes.

Edward Snowden belongs in a prison cell if he committed a crime; how I or you feel about that crime in no way mitigates his eventual finding of factual guilt or non-guilt.

[JDPriestly]

56. The surveillance on your e-mails is in my view illegal.

You use a password to enter your e-mail account. Same with your bank account.

In so doing, you express your expectation of privacy with regard to your e-mails. Same with other internet activity or accounts that you use after putting in a password and using a user name other than your own. That is part of your freedom of association. When three of our Founding Fathers wrote (we assume it was they who wrote) the Federalist Papers, they did so because they wanted to hide their identities. They were expressing an expectation of privacy. It wasn't perfect. People could guess their identities. But they were confirming the eternal fact that when we express certain of our opinions under a name other than our own, we are asserting with the use of a pseudonym or user name that we expect privacy as to those expressions of opinion.

You cannot get more American, more protected by the Constitution than the Federalist Papers. They set a precedent that the use of a user name or pseudonym expresses the desire for and expectation of privacy.

The NSA is violating the Constitution big time and daily and in some cases it my be damaging companies or individuals as it does it. That could cost taxpayers a bit of money.

I do not expect my legal theory to be confirmed by the current Supreme Court or even very soon. But I am pretty certain that, unless a dictator or one of the dynasties that is currently vying to become royal highness in this country succeeds in taking us over entirely, or unless we ruin ourselves fighting ever more distant and impossible wars (as virtually every other empire has done -- Spain, the UK, Rome, Russia, etc.), a future Supreme Court will agree with me.

If we continue on the road to increasing government paranoia and surveillance on the citizens (who are supposed to be the ultimate authority in our country), then we will cease to be a republic, cease to choose any aspect of our government through democratic elections.

I strongly oppose the secret and over-reaching surveillance that is now going on. It is completely inconsistent with our Constitution, the concept of the separation of powers in our government, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and every freedom we have ever claimed we were born with.

[Enthusiast]

329. Thank you! I don't see how anyone could see this any other way.

"I strongly oppose the secret and over-reaching surveillance that is now going on. It is completely inconsistent with our Constitution, the concept of the separation of powers in our government, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and every freedom we have ever claimed we were born with."

Me too.

[Maedhros]

108. Did Daniel Ellsberg belong in prison?

Snowden revealed crimes by the NSA, which makes him a whistleblower and not a spy.

In addition, neither treason nor espionage would be correct descriptions of what Snowden did. He made secret documents available to the public. He did not give them to a rival government or to enemies of the United States.

[merrily]

191. I believe that Snowden knew the risk of imprisonment and did what he did anyway.

However, I am not sure he belongs in prison, given that he sought asylum. The US country has granted asylum to plenty of people, including Russians who violated Russian law and then sought asylum from us.

However, I don't think the left would have excused the imprisonment of Ellsberg, even though he broke the law. So, a lot of the left has certainly gone right over the years.

[arely staircase]

29. that's a shame

[bvar22]

162. Fell on your face with that one.....

...and YOU want to be our Latex Salesman:


[font size=1]credit "Seinfeld"[/font]

[sabrina 1]

31. It's an old Right Wing, McCarthyite attempt to change the subject from the crimes committed by

the US Govt against its own people.

Bush supporters used to use it too, 'Saddam lover', Jihad supporter, etc etc. They just keep recycling the same old talking points and the Old Cold Warriors are simply saving money by resurrecting the McCarthy era talking points. Conserving their allotted propaganda budget, I suppose. They so want to live in a Cold Era again, it was so profitable and the WOT is losing steam, so back to an old enemy. They have to have an enemy to keep the war profits flowing.

The reason people are 'tired' of them is they are so childish. I often wonder how much they pay for this ineffective garbage. Don't we at least have some people involved in this propaganda stuff who are INTELLIGENT.

Ignore them or have fun with them, or use them to help determine who is a supporter of the Security State. But since they do nothing to advance THEIR cause they are, for the most part, harmless, just a temper tamper when anyone points out wrong doing by the USG.

[DirkGently]

57. Such a wasted opportunity for agreement.

Whatever anyone thought of the initial relevations, or their initial skepticism about Snowden or Greenwald, et al, there is no question we found out things we needed to know.

To continue this feeble flailing about trying one transparent fallacy after another is so rightwing. Guilt by Association. Appeal to Patriotism. On and on and on.

It just reads like simple-minded spite at this point.

Why not just recognize the world's appreciate that a couple of Americans did the right thing, it wasn't about the President's rep, and we're better off knowing these things than not knowing?

[sabrina 1]

226. People like Snowden make this country look good. It tells the world that the Corporate Media doesn't

represent ALL Americans and that not ALL Americans are supportive of letting War Criminals 'move forward'. Manning, Drake and Binney also. Our image in the world is so bad that we can no longer admonish torturers or war criminals anywhere else without having fingers point right back at us. 'Abu Ghraib, torturers teaching law in US Colleges' etc.

Sometimes I think that those who try to defend these crimes, or excuse not prosecuting them, hate this country. Why else would they want it to see sink so low on the World Stage, lose its moral authority and constantly watch it be embarrassed when countries like China, eg, respond to our gall pointing out THEIR human rights, with a long list of our own.

Anyone who loves this country will keep on trying to right the wrongs committed in our name. Until that happens we have only people like Manning and Snowden and Drake to point to when they world decides we are nothing but hypocrites.

[pasto76]

33. by definition, he is a traitor. Morally, he is a traitor.

PFC manning, is not a traitor. He faced the consequences of his actions.

snowden ran away - boohoo my passport was revoked. And he dangled releasing more information as attempted leverage to get government off his back.


Which is the rub. If this information was SO dangerous to americans/the country, and you HAD to release it because it was the right thing to do...

why did you keep anything to yourself. Tells me this wasnt about "democracy" "freedom" or any kind of individual rights. This was about who controls it.

and that, is not how you get me to idolize you as a patriot.

[DirkGently]

46. Morally how? We all benefit from the revelations.

Just as we always benefit when leakers and whistleblowers reveal government wrongdoing. We're now having a conversation we weren't having about immoral government action in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights.

Running away to keep the information flowing was simply smart.

[Demeter]

69. "Traitor, Mr. Dickerson? To what? The British Crown? Or the British half-crown?"

My favorite line from the musical play 1776. People around here ought to see it, regularly, to remember what the game is about.

[Maedhros]

110. Revealing to the public the abuses of its goverment makes one a traitor?

Only if one's allegiance is to the government and not to the Constitution.

[DirkGently]

227. +++ Excellent. And exactly the point.

[L0oniX]

256. The real traitors are the ones that are just fine with the NSA.

[ProSense]

34. Can you be

"I can guarantee that if Snowden had leaked these documents with, say, President John McCain or Mitt Romney, those calling him a traitor would be standing in the streets calling him a hero to democracy. "

...sure that under "President John McCain or Mitt Romney" Snowden wouldn't be posting stuff like this:

Ed Snowden: Leakers “should be shot in the balls,” and "cut this Social Security bullshit"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023102239

I mean, kind of funny to see people who are always calling others "authoritarians," "NSA apologists" and other derogatory names getting all self-righteous about people calling Snowden "Comrade Eddie."



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

[randome]

37. There is a reason China made him leave.

There is a reason even the Wikileaks attorneys walked away from him.
And there is a reason Russia won't let him leave.

He doesn't need a passport for Putin to fly him to Nerdvana.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[AverageJoe90]

38. Sure.....keep thinking that.

I can guarantee that if Snowden had leaked these documents with, say, President John McCain or Mitt Romney, those calling him a traitor would be standing in the streets calling him a hero to democracy.

I'm not so sure.In fact, I for one, would be asking if Snowden's exploits might possibly have been designed to discredit anti-Republican whistleblowers, including even by Snowden himself......

[Dragonfli]

39. Whereas I will hear out rational arguments against Snowdens whistle blowin regarding Constitutional

Abuses (not necessarily agreeing with such arguments), this Comrade Eddy slur is juvenile and deserves the respect one would give the arguments of third graders.

They make themselves appear childish and well "stupid" for lack of a better term.

[Vashta Nerada]

49. If Comrade Eddie revealed the NSA spying under Bush

he'd be a hero.

Under Obama, oh hell no. He's a coward and a traitor.

[arely staircase]

73. if the spying he revealed was against china, yes he would be a traitor under Bush. just as he is now

[rhett o rick]

53. Those that disparage Snowden are the same people that disparage all

whistle-blowers, OWS, investigative journalists, or anyone that dares speak out against their chosen authoritarian leaders.

They refuse to debate the merits of the TPP, XL Pipeline, fracking, etc.

[DirkGently]

59. Aren't WE supposed to be the ones who QUESTION authority?

Who lines up with the Secret Police and posits that we're all better off not knowing what our "democratically elected" leadership is up to?

[rhett o rick]

74. I think that a citizen, esp a Democrat, should be skeptical of authority.

But it seems to me that some seek the naive comfort of blindly following authoritarian leadership.

The obsessive hatred of Snowden by people supposedly politically liberal, is upsetting.

[DirkGently]

80. More lame than upsetting, because it isn't working.

Same handful who see every weather report through the lens of Obama's precious rep. Same weird logical contortions and familiar fallacies about guilt by association, appeals to empty name-calling and faux patriotism.

Disgusting, in its Fox n Friends flavor. But also impotent and silly. The Pulitzer has been awarded. No one is fooled.

[emulatorloo]

95. That's a broad brush you got there, Mr. Putin Apologist.

Glad you've chosen your favorite authoritarian leader!

Bet you don't like me calling you a Putin Apologist.

However that is the same lame-ass conflation you are guilty of in your post. So every person who has issues w Snowden is pro-fracking and pro-pipeline, huh?

Lame.

[rhett o rick]

215. I will go thru it slower. Those that spew hatred for Snowden do so because

they dont like anyone speaking truth to power. Those that are willing to listen to whistle-blowers are more typically skeptical of authoritarian leaders like Putin. Put a (D) behind Putin's name and bingo-bango he'd have a following. And not the left.

I didnt claim that those obsessively spewing whistle-blower hatred are pro-fracking or pro-XL pipeline. What I did say is that there seems to be a correlation between those that hate whistle-blowers and those that never discuss issues like fracking, the TPP, etc. Maybe they are just too busy with posting hatred.

I think that leaders should be subservient to the people and not the other way round. I also think it odd that those that hate Republicans will worship at the alter of General Clapper who is definitely not a Democrat.

[stonecutter357]

319. I can think eddie is a libertarian ass and not like the NSA.

thanks

[rhett o rick]

352. I heard that General Clapper was a libertarian. nm

[L0oniX]

199. Same people that don't realize that we are not living under a democracy anymore.

I suspect most of them are government employees of some sort or in some way connected.

[sendero]

217. My strong suspicion also..

.. since the arguments they make are beyond stupid and would only fool other beyond stupid people, But they just keep trying and trying and trying.

[rhett o rick]

218. IMHO they live in a state of denial and hate it when someone tries to look behind the

curtain.

[Douglas Carpenter]

306. nah - like a certain sub-sect that you find on the fringe of all ideological movements - they are

being authoritarianism's useful idiots for free

[NuclearDem]

251. I don't care for Snowden.

And I protested alongside OWS, give money to independent media outlets, and don't support prosecuting whistleblowers (including Snowden).

I also don't care much for the NSA or any of the other things you listed.

[rhett o rick]

255. I dont care if people dont like Snowden. What bothers me are those that disparage

him obsessively and for things that they make up (e.g., "he gave Russia our secrets&quot . I see it as a sickness that harms our country and esp the DEmocratic party.

I dont know Snowden and I dont care if I ever know him. He pulled the curtain back to expose a potential problem. I dont know if there is a problem but it would make very good sense that there was a problem. Let's look at the potential problem and stop the distractive obsession with vilifying Snowden.

[DirkGently]

333. ^An excellent nutshell for the whole thing. I hope everyone reads it.

Obsessing over personalities and motives is destructive and beside the point.

Do we, or do we not, as liberals, progressives, and Democrats, think the surveillance state that has exploded since 9/11, is too opaque, lacking in informed, responsible oversight, and pursuing an egregious overreaching, particularly in the realm of digital information?

Do we support the idea of "whistleblowing" by insiders where legal means to reveal government wrongdoing are blocked?

If so, do we change our positions on these things based on whether we "like" the whistleblower, whether it potentially embarrasses a Democrat, or whether we suspect the person in question has personality issues or ideologies not exactly like our own?

It seems like what ought to matter is the truth. Did we gain something here? Are we asking questions long overdue? Are we pursuing reform as a result? Looks to me like we are. On the other hand was "America" harmed in some way if political embarrassment does NOT count?

If the argument here is that Snowden, Greenwald, et al, are political opponents of Democrats or the President, what is the relevance to all of the above? It's not as though the effect of all of this was primarily anti Democrat or anti-democratic. Rightwingers in our country are not coming at Dems on the basis of the NSA scandal. Republicans love the surveillance state. It's full of money and power and secrecy. Those are their hallmarks, not ours.

This type of whistleblowing is absolutely on our side of the fence, or at least it has been traditionally. But we're supposed to forget all that and circle the wagons because we suspect Snowden's motives? What kind of people are we if our priorities begin and end with not what people do, but who they ARE, or who we say they are? That's a rightwing attitude. Stealing's not stealing if you're a big bank. Lying's not lying if you're in politics. Spy agencies run amok get swept under the rug when our guy's in the Whitehouse.

I'd care about motives if it looked like Snowden was trying to really screw U.S. security. There is no evidence of that. This is not the way that is done. It would have been infinitely easier to disappear with that thumb drive without saying word or contacting the press. It could have been traded for a mountain of cash instead of a life on the run. And there are far unfriendlier and more extremely political mass media figures than Greenwald or the Guardian to partner with.

If we really care about Democratic politics and leadership, we should be obsessed with standing for what we say we do, not with whose ox gets gored in the process.

[rhett o rick]

349. That should be an OP. Plez consider it. nm

[KoKo]

353. Recommend!

[stonecutter357]

384. stop the distractive obsession with vilifying Snowden.

he is a villain.
Ed Snowden: Leakers should be “shot in the balls”
Snowden may have leaned libertarian on some issues, but he also exhibited strong support for America's security state apparatus. He didn't just work for it as a quiet dissident. Four years before he would leak the country's secrets, Snowden was cheering its actions and insisting that it needed healthy funding. To anyone who questioned US actions in his favored online hangout, he could be derisive.

[rhett o rick]

387. "Stop the distractive obsession with vilifying Snowden." I so agree. Thanks. nm

[MohRokTah]

58. I call bullshit on Snowden not choosing to go to Russia

HE chose to go.

Nobody stuck a gun to a head and forced him to board an aircraft with a Moscow destination.

He made his choice, now he has to live with it.

[DirkGently]

62. Not many places are safe from U.S. influence.

Western Europe was out. We grabbed a plane we just SUSPECTED might be taking him to South America.

So now we're supposed to conclude what? That the NSA revelations somehow have less import because the guy who made them available wound up in Russia?

I call bullshit on THAT.

[MohRokTah]

63. So what you're saying is he's a cowardly criminal afraid to face the music for his crimes.

That makes him typically Ayn Randian inhis thought processes. He doesn't wish to be held accountable for his illegal actions.

[DirkGently]

77. Ayn Rand? Where is the motive for personal gain?

In jail or in Russia, Snowden is in a worse place personally by far than if he hadn't acted.

The real cowards here are those who think their misplaced devotion to a single political leader validates any kind of childish, contorted logic to try to somehow discredit what everyone recognizes as an important contribution to our democracy.

Ayn Rand happily threw democracy under the bus, while benefitting from those who gave to make it happen, to support her self-deluded political fantasies. There's a much greater parallel between her and those trying to retroactively apologize for the NSA's misdeeds out of a misbegotten belief it hurt Obama somehow by smearing the messenger, than between her and Ed Snowden.

[MohRokTah]

83. Motive? FAME! eom

[DirkGently]

88. Uh huh. Big Dancing with the Stars money coming for Snowden, amirite?

[MohRokTah]

89. It satisfies the ego, and Eddie Galt has proved one thing.

He has an even bigger ego than Greenwald.

[DirkGently]

97. Sooo ... the NSA was right all along?

Because ... ego? Or something? Assume all the messengers involved in the NSA revelations have terrible personalities, kick defenseless hamsters, and don't recycle.

Where's that supposed to take us regarding the NSA's unconstitutional activities and the Pulitzer-winning reportage on all of that?

[MohRokTah]

111. Nice misdirect and straw man.

[DirkGently]

116. Sooo ... Snowden is NOT about the NSA?

Do you contend that Snowden is a coward, traitor, somehow-Ayn-Rand-person because of his acts, but nevertheless, the useful, prizewinning revelations about the NSA are GOOD?

Please explain.

[MohRokTah]

130. I don't go beyond Eddie Galt being a criminal who engaged in espionage.

Everything beyond that is irrelevant.

[frylock]

146. who engaged in espionage now?

[MohRokTah]

147. I'm done talking about this

That you would even ask such an absurd question means we can have no meaningful discussion on the issue of this criminal.

[DirkGently]

214. A criminal like Ellsberg & Drake, you mean.

Because apparently all whistleblowers are deserving of our contempt, regardless of the good they do.

Super argument.

[grasswire]

248. now, that was a head-scratching exchange!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

257. Did Ellsberg let a foreign country know how the us spied on them?

I am more then happy to commend Snowden for most his NSA revelations(only parts not commended is the exaggerations)

I also however have nothing but disdain for the revelations he has done that is unrelated to US domestic matters.

or in short, i see no reason to ignore the wrong things he does just cause he does some good.

[L0oniX]

324. Bwahahahahah ...yea right. The NSA and CIA are the kings of espionage...

and they both are mob criminal government organizations just like the Stazi and KGB along with their torture and special prisons.

[Dragonfli]

276. You don't understand the terms you are throwing around do you?

I am rather embarrassed for you, you might want to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged so that you understand what you think you are talking about. Just a suggestion mind you.

[MohRokTah]

285. I'm embarrased for the cult of Eddie Galt.

They're not much different than the cult of Ayn Rand.

[Dragonfli]

286. Um Okay, I guess you decided not to take my advice as evidenced by your reply

Maybe an eight grader can explain Galt to you in easy to understand terms after reading it for you?

[MohRokTah]

289. Please, stop attempting to bait me. eom

[SwampG8r]

296. when it comes to baiting

you are a master

[MohRokTah]

297. And the baiting continues.

[HangOnKids]

301. And the immature Eddie Galt references continue

Nobody is baiting you dear, you are letting it all hang out by yourself.

[SwampG8r]

304. all i can say is

[2banon]

60. Just commented in a different OP...

cross posting my original :

Partisan figures aside, it baffles me that Snowden attackers ignore The Police State here..

...in the U.S.A. I recognize it is difficult to recognize if one is of the privileged class. Someone needs to yank off their rose colored glasses in some cases, or the thick veil from their shuttered eyes in other instances.


As if Snowden, the Personality, is the issue of concern. It would be hilarious if the willful denial weren't so contemptible. Anytime a comment or media appearance is made from Snowden, the frequent response centers around the notion that "Snowden is all about Snowden".. and so ensues the usual pedestrian flaming which is in general keeping with anti-Russian propagandizing of their Police State apparatus/policies and thug politicians etc, completely and disingenuously ignoring the institutionalization of the Police State Apparatus here in the U.S.A., which existed to a certain extent long before 9/11, but finally became institutionalized vis a vis all of the renditions of the 'Patriot Act', strip and search, surveillance etc.

[MohRokTah]

64. BTW, "Comrade Eddie" is a bullshit moniker. HE's Eddie Galt

He gets the "Galt" tag after his biggest hero in poorly written fiction.

[DirkGently]

91. Because Russia is so libertarian?

I am fascinated by this contorted Ayn Rand thing you're throwing down. Please explain further?

[MohRokTah]

151. This absurd question demonstrates you have never looked into Eddie Galt's past. eom

[Mojorabbit]

195. Actually, it was a good question.

Would love to hear your answer.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

205. That's two questions you've refused to answer when you had no answer.

It's kind of transparent. Welcome (back) to DU.

[MohRokTah]

231. That's twice you've ignored facts surrounding Effie Galt and made some sort of accusation

Though I must admit, the gist of your accusation eludes me.

[Marshall III]

65. Not a "comrade", but still has to come back to the US to stand trial.

Just like Cliven Bundy. No matter how right you think you think you are or how right you may be, the same system applies to all.

If he wants to get the word out about what was going on, a trial is the place to make a stand.

[SidDithers]

66. And I'm sick of Edward Snowden, global hero...nt

Sid

[MisterP]

67. a few twists of fate and they'd be calling him "Hong Kong Tong Eddie" or "altiplano-skipping,

coca-chewing, Guaman Poma de Ayala-reading BOLIVIAN" or "ski-jumping Austrian--that's where HITLER WAS FROM"

[Demeter]

72. "Ignore" is your friend

And I use it liberally....pun intended.

[penndragon69]

79. Snowden commited an act of TREASON

plain and simple. Then he ran around China and Russia offering his
information to the highest bidder.....Russia won.

20 years ago he would have been executed by firing squad
just like every other TRAITOR.

[DirkGently]

87. What now? Who did we "firing squad" for "treason" in 1994?

That is very, very silly. There's also zero indication Russia got anything that didn't go to the press, that U.S. interests outside of not being embarrassed by the NSA's bad behavior were harmed, or that "treason" is even a possible charge against Snowden.

100% bullshit.

[arely staircase]

92. Snowden didn't committ treason.

He is a shithead who engaged in espionage for a foreign power (China) and perhaps two (Russia.) He also shone an important spotlight on NSA overreach when it comes to telephone data collection. If he had only done that last thing. He would be a hero in my book. But he chose to go another way and is now a propaganda tool for a dictator.

But treason is very narrowly defined in our constitution. So far I haven't seen anything he has done that would remotely fit that bill.

[DirkGently]

100. Interesting. Has the DOJ charged him with "espionage?"

It's stipulated he leaked classified stuff. Has anyone with the actual authority to do so claimed the materials that went to the Pulitzer-winning reporting on illegal NSA activities constituted "Espionage?"

[arely staircase]

107. yes the charge is espionage, not treason

and he is pretty clearly guilty of it.

[DirkGently]

112. What do you know that DOJ doesn't?

If it's so clear, one would think the authorities would have at least floated something about that. So far it's just the predictable knee-jerk "Everything is About Obama's Precious Rep" people, still smarting from the Pulitzer, trying this latest round of utter nonsense.

But please, if it's such a clear case of "espionage," you must have some evidence.

Please proceed.

[arely staircase]

120. I think a criminal complaint charging him with violating the Espionage Act counts

On June 14, 2013, United States federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against Snowden, charging him with theft of government property, and alleging he had violated the U.S.'s 1917 Espionage Act through unauthorized communication of national defense information and "willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person."[4][277]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_snowden#Criminal_charges

[DirkGently]

122. Yes, we know they charged him under the "Espionage Act."

Everyone gets charged under "The Espionage Act." For leaking classified information to the press, which he did.

YOU said he gave secrets to China and Russia.

Got anything?

[arely staircase]

125. I said he gave them to China - that was widely reported.

as far as Russia I don't know. I am starting to think he didn't have anything (or much) for them. Since Putin has him doing tricks on TV I am thinking they may have been disappointed in what Snowden could do for them.

[DirkGently]

137. No it wasn't. There was one article, oft-repeated

in the rightwing press, suggesting Snowden disgorged something to Chinese officials when he was in Hong Kong. Not even the U.S. has claimed that was true, as far as I know.

Don't you think DOJ would be screaming it from the rooftops if it had evidence he actually gave sensitive stuff directly to another country?

We never called leaking government wrongdoing to the press "espionage" in the past. Pulling that and the "traitor" thing out to try to undermine the good done by these leaks is therefore either missing the point or wholly disingenuous.

Clearly many are offended that to whatever degree, the leaks embarrassed the administration. Obama didn't start the bad practices at the NSA, so even that seems like a wild overreaction to me.

Regardless, it's very hard to regard the type of leaks Snowden did (as far as we know for sure) with undermining the actual security of the country or helping its enemies.

[arely staircase]

170. yes it was. use the googles

I posted a million times from several sources when it first happened.

[DirkGently]

173. I remember. All from the same Chinese article.

Many links. One source. None from U.S. authorities. Zero.

[arely staircase]

175. yes it was a chinese paper he gave an interveiw to and revealed what PLA systems the US was hacking

It was one source, yes. A source he gave an interview to. Multiple other papers picked it up.

[Maedhros]

118. Please inform yourself regarding the legal definition of TREASON

before you make a fool of yourself by accusing others of committing it. FAIL.

He also did not offer information to the highest bidder - he gave it to journalists. FAIL.

Your post is the perfect example of how to earn a place on the ignore list: spout nonsensical and hateful bullshit.

[ucrdem]

159. As defined by the US Constitution, you are correct. Snowden committed treason:

from Article III, section 3:

SECTION. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now this depends on defining China and Russia as "enemies," but they are certainly our rivals, and in the area of cyberwarfare could persuasively be classified as enemies. And if we come to blows in Ukraine, and I hope we don't, I'm afraid things could go very badly for Mr Ed. In any case I don't think "aid and comfort" are in dispute.

[arely staircase]

229. I disagree. I think my snowden sucks credentials are pretty solid around here but

no treason. We are not at war with Russia or China (the latter being the only foreign country we know he gave clasified intel to.) And he should have the book thrown at him for doing so.

[DirkGently]

230. Yeah. No. That's not what any of that means.

Aid and comfort to enemies doesn't contemplate just going somewhere. It's about war, and we don't have permanent "enemies" under the Constitution.

Ridiculous. No one before the present administration even found the Espionage Act to apply to leakers and journalists. We recognize a distinction between releasing classified material to the press and handing it another government. No one's charged Snowden with treason because no one can.

Nobody thinks that.

[nashville_brook]

192. so… a documentary film maker and indie blogger apparently made the highest bid?

and, that's the "treason"? for passing info to journalists? really?

[Phlem]

332. I know right? I happen to love the NSA going through my shit!

Traitor....now that's funny. Let's see he's effectively got no one killed, but I'm sure Bush is your hero huh?




just sad.

[Cryptoad]

84. Please Come Home , Comrade Snowden! /nt

[DesMoinesDem]

90. The NSA apologists are so stupid they don't know Russia isn't communist.

[DirkGently]

93. Some of them apparently think it's Libertarian?

Or ... something? I guess we're supposed to smush the "Glenn Greenwald is a Libertarian So the NSA is Fine Just Fine" meme from before into the "Snowden is in Russia and Putin is bad so the NSA is Fine Just Fine thing they're trying now?

Very odd.

[msanthrope]

96. As the DUer who coined the phrase "Comrade Eddie," no.

I mean if I called him a piece of shit used car salesman, I could see your point, and would perhaps tone it down.

Otherwise I think moniker fits pretty well.

[DirkGently]

99. I would copyright that shit ASAP. It's going places.

Seriously though, what if Snowden is a Putin-helping, puppy kicking egomaniac with mismatched socks and a library full of Rand Paul pamphlets? I'm not sure how all that goes together, but say it does.

So what? Snowden bad, soooo unconstitutional NSA spying good?

It's hard to follow.

[ProSense]

104. Are you

"Seriously though, what if Snowden is a Putin-helping, puppy kicking egomaniac with mismatched socks and a library full of Rand Paul pamphlets? I'm not sure how all that goes together, but say it does.

So what? Snowden bad, soooo unconstitutional NSA spying good? "

...seriously trying to claim that if Snowden did, in fact, provide U.S. information to Russia or any foreign country it's irrelevant?

That doesn't change the facts of NSA overreach, but it damn sure wouldn't end with "so what"?

[DirkGently]

109. Are you saying he committed "Espionage?"

Please, state your basis for that. I was responding to the "Comrade Eddie" thing, which I'll think you'll agree is a kind of strange, given it's an anti-Communist slur, and there are no Communists in the NSA scandal so far as we're aware.

Perhaps a link? Perhaps in blue? Perhaps a small one?

No?

[ProSense]

126. The comment was

"Are you saying he committed 'Espionage?'"

...in response to your hypothetical "so what"? Still, let's start with the charges:

Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.

Snowden was charged with theft, “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html

Second, there many people who oppose NSA overreach, but who recognize the value of the debate, but who don't approve of Snowden's actions that go beyond sparking a debate about the NSA's domestic activities. There are also those who see merit in his actions and also recognize that he needs to be held accountable. In the end, a trial is required to hold him accountable.

Carter: Snowden's leaks 'good for Americans to know'

Susan Page

NEW YORK -- Former president Jimmy Carter defended the disclosures by fugitive NSA contractor Edward Snowden on Monday, saying revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were collecting meta-data of Americans' phone calls and e-mails have been "probably constructive in the long run."

<...>

Does he view Snowden, now granted asylum in Russia, as a hero or a traitor?

"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."

Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.

"I think it's inevitable that he should be prosecuted and I think he would be prosecuted" if he returned to the United States, the former president said. "But I don't think he ought to be executed as a traitor or any kind of extreme punishment like that."

- more -

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/24/usa-today-capital-download-jimmy-carter-edward-snowden-probably-constructive/6822425/

Senator Blumenthal: prosecute Snowden, overhaul FISA courts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023425884

Rep. John Lewis: "NO PRAISE FOR SNOWDEN-Reports about my interview with The Guardian are misleading"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023427908

“What Mr. Snowden did is treason, was high crimes, and there is nothing in what we say that justifies what he did,” said Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism advisor and current ABC News contributor. “Whether or not this panel would have been created anyway, I don’t know, but I don’t think anything that I’ve learned justifies the treasonous acts of Mr. Snowden.”

From the beginning, it was clear that Snowden broke the law (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290). There was a point where even Snowden supporters accepted that he knew he broke the law. Snowden said it himself.

Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.

His actions since then have only made the situation worse.

Whistleblowers have been making that point, some in subtle ways.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023236549

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023035550

Of course, this is dimissed because they're also critical of the NSA. It's as if some think that you can't be against NSA overreach (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023002358) unless you support Snowden.

What's that line thrown out whenever Greenwald is criticized: Were you against Clarke when he went after Bush? Were you for Scooter Libby when he leaked Plame's identity?

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

[DirkGently]

131. The value of the NSA leaks is unquestionable. The attempts

to turn Snowden's whistleblowing into a crime that overshadows those of the NSA are disingenuous, and universally come from right-wingers and the small band of full-time Obama protectionists here on DU.

America never treated leaks of classified information showing government wrongdoing to the PRESS as "espionage," which is commonly understood to mean giving sensitive information to the enemy before this administration.

The further you go down this road, the harder you shoot the Obama administration in the foot, which I presume is the opposite of what's intended.

My point stands. "Comrade Eddy" and the like are silly attempts to cream the messenger, and do nothing to dilute NSA wrongdoing.

Calling attention to the fact that the Obama administration has pursued more journalists and whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than anyone in history is a sidelight, but we can talk about Thomas Drake, et al if you want to go there.

No one thinks the NSA revelations were espionage, or that the Pulitzer-winning reporting using Snowden's information are overshadowed by the illegality of the leaks.

[ProSense]

136. LOL!

"The value of the NSA leaks is unquestionable. The attempts to turn Snowden's whistleblowing into a crime that overshadows those of the NSA are disingenuous, and universally come from right-wingers and the small band of full-time Obama protectionists here on DU."

Yeah, those who think Snowden committed a crime are either "right-wingers" or "full-time Obama protectionists here on DU."

Where does Jimmy Carter fit in when he says:

"There's no doubt that he broke the law and that he would be susceptible, in my opinion, to prosecution if he came back here under the law," he said. "But I think it's good for Americans to know the kinds of things that have been revealed by him and others -- and that is that since 9/11 we've gone too far in intrusion on the privacy that Americans ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship."

Carter cautioned that he didn't have information about whether some of the disclosures "may have hurt our security or individuals that work in security," adding, "If I knew that, then I may feel differently." And he said Snowden shouldn't be immune from prosecution for his actions.

[DirkGently]

140. Uh huh. "A crime." Not the crime of spying for a foreign power.

You want to stipulate that leaking classified information to the press is a different thing from betraying the country to its enemies, fine.

But you seem to want to tap-dance around that.

No one thinks Snowden committed espionage like leaking the atom bomb to Israel or sub plans to the Soviets.

He leaked evidence of government overreach to the PRESS.

No one before this administration ever tried to conflate that with "espionage."

Again, you want to explore that road, okay. But it's not going to advance the agenda very well. You are zeroing in on the only real Obama-damning element of the entire thing.

Please proceed.

(LOL)

[ProSense]

145. "A crime" is different from a "crime"? n/t

[DirkGently]

156. Yes, ProSense, there are different crimes. It's a whole thing.

There are books and stuff. Check it out sometime.

[ProSense]

178. Are they all "crimes"? n/t

[DirkGently]

190. There are big, thick books telling about the different kinds. n/t

[randome]

150. He didn't 'leak' anything.

He turned over everything he had to several organizations. That's not even 'leaking', it's...passing along stolen goods and hoping for the best.

As poor as the NSA's security turned out to be, what do you think of large corporate media companies? Do you think they are somehow more secure and that this information has no chance of falling into the wrong hands?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

152. Of course it was a leak. And you don't actually know that, at all.

Snowden didn't do a data dump the way even Manning did. And according to Greenwald, he was extremely concerned that the data be handled carefully and used in exactly the way it has been.

There is no mega-file on the Internet where you can go and read it all.

As far as speculating that someone else could get something and do something else with it, that's all it is. You could just as easily speculate that if the data was that easy to steal, someone other than Snowden could and would have done something far worse with it.

Edit: I did notice the thing at the end trying to characterize the leak as "stealing." Because ... it was copied before it was leaked? Okay. Did Ellsberg make copies? Did Drake? So ... that was also just "theft? "

Not a good argument.

[randome]

158. But that's the definition of 'espionage'.

Stealing information and giving it away to foreign sources.

You're right, someone else could have done the same thing. Maybe they already did. Maybe the NSA's security leaks like a net. But one thing we do know is that Snowden, by giving everything he had to others, put many national security issues at risk.

There doesn't need to be proof of harm. If you steal something and give it away, you're a thief no matter if someone benefits from the stolen material or not.

The risk is real.

And we have no idea what has become of these documents in the hands of the Guardian, Greenwald, Pierre Omidyar and Der Spiegel.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

163. No. Espionage is helping the enemy. Or it used to be.

Proof of harm has everything to do with why we recognize "whistleblowing" as a thing.

Do you seriously contend what Snowden and Greenwald did was more like giving our atomic secrets to Russia and Israel than like Ellsberg or Drake revealing government wrongdoing?

Make the case. Show me how the intent and effect here were to hurt America, and not to reveal wrongdoing that benefitted the public.

Tell me where the Pulizter Committee just gave a prize for the equivalent of giving microdots with submarine plans to the Soviets.

[randome]

250. We will probably never know what information has been 'leaked' to foreign countries.

Simply because we have no way of knowing where all this classified information has gone. In fact, Snowden has no way of knowing where it's gone. It's like stealing money and throwing it into the street. "What money? I don't have any money. Go talk to those guys."

I say Snowden's intent was to harm the country by way of his Libertarian ethos. And to be the center of attention. It doesn't need to be a logical intent to the rest of us.

And that Pulitzer prize? Pfft. I think giving Obama the Nobel was wrong-headed. Which makes me have less respect for prizes in general.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

253. "But one thing we do know is that Snowden, by giving everything he had to others, put many national

.....security issues at risk"

We know that? Please document.

[randome]

273. You're right, I personally don't know.

So you think it's okay to steal national security documents and toss them around? That's like stealing a car and leaving it at the police station. Maybe it was used for something nefarious but we don't know so it must be okay, right? Forgive and forget?

OTOH, there was that detailed data delivered to China. There is revealing NSA international spying on other countries. Make a note that these countries -even Germany- protested reflexively and now are silent. Because they do the same.

Nothing was gained by Snowden revealing our international spying operations. Unless you equate 'gain' with embarrassing us or advancing the Libertarian cause.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

278. AFAIK, the only source for the claim that...

....Snowden delivered detailed data to China is a right-wing Chinese newspaper formerly owned by Murdoch. That is what I was asking you to source.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

274. That's pretty much the point.

Last edited Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Snowden will go down in the books for what he did ,not who he is or what he is. As far as his words lay ed down about principle, I don't believe him one damn bit.

Snowden is all about Snowden .If Snowden were a man of principle ,he wouldn't have tried to educate the mas s's with his defense of actions because he would know that in time if he is right,or on the side of right,
there will be nothing left to question in the outcome.He is without a doubt a classless bozo. Snowden does not yet realize he is powerless.And if you wonder why Putin got such a chuckle out it, that's why. Nothing could have prepared Putin for Snowden . Sure Putin knew in advance it was coming, but to Putin ,Snowden came across unbelievably unreal.That means the questions seemed comical -Putin was entertained by it.

Snowden wants, needs and craves your attention and support efforts because he is lonely as all hell now and in a foreign land.

He's a wussy.

The Ukraine has called for a calm until after Easter Sunday and for the time being Snowden is the deflection -They made him the news.

And clearly he is isn't he. He's everywhere and nowhere.

[grasswire]

335. all conjecture on your part

assumption after baseless assumption.

A classless bozo.
Powerless.
Unbelievably unreal in Putin's eyes.
Wants, needs, craves attention.
Lonely as hell.
Wussy.
Everywhere and nowhere.

You are right about one thing. Snowden will go down in the books for what he did. History will tell of his courage in the face of formidable foes who want to keep secret files on every citizen.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

359. You seem to be in full agreement with Snowden when he mirrored bin laden's words,

you know, when Snowden said I already won. -attention seeking-,

Snowden is a wuss.What is odd about him is he gives off the impression he is unaware of the fact he is powerless.

That's bozo.

They used to go back at least three generations when clearing one for a secret or top secret clearance. So yea, they keep files on everyone.Thing of it is, that's no secret.Every test you ever took the test results end up somewhere, did you ever think about that ? You know ,fill in the little circles.

No, really I get it, he really really exposed it.

There was a time in his country not so very long ago when some people were afraid to speak their minds in public because they believed those Hoover boys would come around knocking on your door, coming to take you away.The 1950's early 60's in there.McCarthy all that.

But hay it's Easter, and all that is/was just a whole lot of BS.

Right ?

[TheKentuckian]

243. Look forward, Prosense, look forward.

[ProSense]

252. I should add Bernie Sanders

<...>

BLITZER: What about Snowden? Do you think that he committed a crime or he was simply a well-intentioned whistle-blower?

SANDERS: Well, I think what you have to look at is -- I think there is no question that he committed a crime, obviously. He violated his oath and he leaked information.

On the other hand, what you have to weigh that against is the fact that he has gone a very long way in educating the people of our country and the people of the world about the power of private agency in terms of their surveillance over people of this country, over foreign leaders, and what they are doing.

So, I think you got to weigh the two. My own belief is that I think, I would hope that the United States government could kind of negotiate some plea bargain with him, some form of clemency. I think it wouldn't be a good idea or fair to him to have to spend his entire remaining life abroad, not being able to come back to his country.

So I would hope that there's a price that he has to pay, but I hope it is not a long prison sentence or exile from his country.

BLITZER: You wouldn't give him clemency, though, and let him off scot-free?

SANDERS: No. BLITZER: All right, Senator, thanks very much for joining us.

<...>

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1401/06/sitroom.02.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024292659

[msanthrope]

134. Indeed..if one uses binary thinking, it is difficult to place yourself within the narrative.

As I've indicated previously, it's entirely possible completely appreciate that the 215, FISA, and NSA issues need attention, whilst realizing that Snowden and Greenwald are utter tools.

Merely pointing out that much of what Snowden is complaining about is not illegal does not make one an authoritarian....it makes one cognizant of what the law actually is.

I'm still waiting for one of the Snowden fans to have an active discussion regarding the actual laws involved...instead, they seem to waste everyone's time with breathless reporting about his appearances at film festivals.

[DirkGently]

149. Isn't that cognitively dissonant?

Snowden leaked worthwhile information that is helping us all, and Greenwald and the Guardian did world class, Pulitzer-winning reportage with it, BUT they're "tools?"

Say they're "tools." Totally toolage. The tooliest of Tool-Town tools.

That means, what? Is there someone making an argument that ... well, ANYONE is some Christ-like, infallible figure? I mean, what kind of idiot thinks anyone, whether it be a reporter or a political activist, or god-forbid-President-Obama isn't personally noxious somehow or another?

I will stipulate that many people are tools in some way. Perhaps all of them.

But the NSA leaks and reporting were nevertheless a good thing, and the right thing to do.

Doesn't make my head explode in the slightest.

As for the laws involved, we recognize a thing called "whistleblowing." It is distinct from things like "giving bomb plans to the Soviet Union." Or it used to be.

[bvar22]

154. Excellent Rebuttal.

[msanthrope]

165. No...Comrade Eddie leaked nothing that had not been apparent to anyone who was paying

attention, and he leaked a whole lot of unproven claims that still haven't been backed up. His leaks have not been particularly helpful in getting anything changed.....because that isn't his purpose.

And the reauthorization of 215 is passing under the radar...because everyone's fawning over some slide presentation and two jackasses who conveniently shifted the narrative away from what should be the bloodiest legislative fight this Congress faces, and what should end the Republican Party.

[ucrdem]

166. Bingo.

The agenda has been clear for going on a year now, to some at least.

[msanthrope]

172. When Section 215 is reauthorized because we had a depressed voter turnout, and

we were all so afraid of the NSA that we weren't paying attention to the real game in town I'm going to laugh. Bitterly.

The Repubs are going to reauthorize, and then use that as vindication of Bush to get Jebbie elected.

[treestar]

176. good point - they accuse of making it about Comrade Eddie but

he and Glennie are the ones demanding attention. Each of his antics makes it more about him. It's he and not us dragging attention away from what the law is.

[msanthrope]

355. Given the press conferences, the Ted appearances, and the film festival appearances...

along with the various testimonies to various parliaments, we simply aren't given a chance to not make it about comrade Eddie

[DirkGently]

177. Right. A Pulitzer. For old news everyone knew already.

We knew the NSA had been up to no good. Yet, I must have posted the EFF stuff about the known violations of the Constitution, going well into the Obama years, time and again, in response to the Old News Nothing to See Here defense and the endless, "But FISA makes it all okay" utter bullshit put forward at the time.

That ship has sailed. We did learn a lot about the scope and blatant nature of NSA surveillance, and continue to do so. More importantly, we are having an important conversation we were, according to you, not having before.

So what kind of assholerly is it for people to keep squealing about Snowden being a Commie or whatever, when it did the good that it did?

What relevance to anything could that possibly have?

If the ambition isn't to blunt the NSA scandal somehow, what IS the point? We're supposed to agree Snowden is a treasony tool of Putin The Terrible, while still acknowledging these leaks needed to come out?

C'mon. Nobody thinks that.

[ucrdem]

182. Nether Snowden nor Greenwald won Pulitzer prizes.

for journalism or anything else. The Guardian US and WaPo won prizes. Nor were either of them even nominated. See for yourself:


http://www.pulitzer.org/node/8501

[DirkGently]

187. You do understand they reported ON the leaked information?

And the Guardian's reporting was Greenwald's.

Sooo ... yeah. Did you have a point, somewhere?

[ucrdem]

189. Yes, the point is that neither won Pulitzer prizes.

Have a wonderful Easter!

[DirkGently]

193. Yes, Snowden's leaks became Pulitzer Prizewinning journalism.

As we all know.

I do love Easter ("generally held to have originally referred to the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess, Ēostre, a form of the widely attested Indo-European dawn goddess." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter)

All the pagan symbolism of sex and fertility and rebirth is quite beautiful. I had many wonderful egg hunts as a child.

Enjoy the holiday.

[msanthrope]

204. Judith Miller got a Pulitzer, too. Look how that turned out.

Her reporting obscured the real story.

What is being obscured, now? 215 is.

[DirkGently]

209. You're equating real NSA wrongdoing with LIES about Iraq?

That is too sad an attempt to dissemble to even merit a response.

Nobody thinks that.

[msanthrope]

261. No....I'm pointing out that the narrative is not always what it seems. You are avoiding

my point about 215. Why?

[Recursion]

310. Snowden was a CIA agent who has advanced the CIA's interests greatly

And managed to reveal precisely zero about them, only about their chief rival, for whom he worked as a contractor. I personally don't think there's a Moscow angle, just a Langley one.

It's funny to me that people adopting an attitude of cynicism never stop to ask who wanted us to see what Snowden leaked...

[msanthrope]

361. Exactlly. Dirty work is afoot. nt

[stonecutter357]

315. K&R

[WillyT]

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

[Warpy]

128. Naw, some people just circle the wagons and jerk their knees

whenever a whistleblower confronts them with news that shakes their comfortable worlds.

This is no different from Ellsberg. A lot of Democrats thought he was disloyal and they really didn't want to know just how wretchedly corrupt two administrations had been.

The fact is that Snowden is a hero for confirming our worst fears about how far illegal spying on ordinary citizens has gone. It was always something we thought we knew. Now we know it, period.

Russia offered Snowden temporarily asylum. He was supposed to be gone in a month, but they have allowed him to stay on. I doubt he's become much of a tool and I imagine he'd rather come home. However, given the political climate here, even on DU, there is no way that will happen.

[randome]

135. Talk about circling the wagons!

"Confirming our worst fears"? The NSA keeping copies of metadata records? That was your worst fear?

All the other stuff -all of it- has been about international spying or not even bothering to check whether it pertains to international spying or not.

Can you at least admit the possibility that there are a sizable number of people who don't see the metadata issue as a big deal? No one is 'jerking their knees'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[nashville_brook]

186. just b/c you don't see it as a big deal, doesn't mean it's not a big deal.

there might still be people who think the world is flat. still, its roundness carries on.

[Warpy]

201. They should.

You can mine a lot of personal information from metadata and the picture it builds is not always accurate. We've seen plenty of witch hunts before. A new one will be far worse, backed up with this stuff. It will happen again.

Some people just can't see the totalitarianism for what it is.

[JaneyVee]

143. ITS NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN!

[DirkGently]

155. Correct. n/t

[JaneyVee]

157. Apparently it is though.

[DirkGently]

168. Snowden's the point for people with no argument re: the NSA scandal.

I tried getting people to stipulate that the leaks were good... even if they think Snowden is a "tool" or what have you.

So far, nothing.

So it's hard not to conclude this isn't some kind of rearguard action trying to retroactively discredit the un-discreditable NSA leaks now celebrated by the entire world.

Bit hard to swallow the point of view that somehow people are Snowden "fans," as though that were a thing in the absence of the NSA scandal he launched.

But I've try to let people prove that by stipulating that the leaks accomplished something good, whether Snowden is great, or terrible, or whatever.

So far no takers.

You?

[Renew Deal]

160. He's not stuck there. The US said that they would permit him to fly back

So he's not "stuck" there.

[99Forever]

179. That bit of obsurdity all you've got?

[Thinkingabout]

161. Poor Edward, for he did not know what he was doing, he's just an activist,

Why can't he just do whatever he pleases? Putin said it like it is, Snowden is a spy, that's why. If he is someone's patsy he could turn states witness, tell what he knows and just may get a light sentence. He seems to like to tell other things he should not have told, what is stopping him now.

[Douglas Carpenter]

164. you seem to be suggesting that when a Democratic Administration is doing something that we would be

condemning if it were a Republican Administration - that we are so suppose to hold the Democratic Administration accountable and insist that they follow the principles that they campaigned on. That is simply outrageous and irrational!

[DirkGently]

171. It's like we want US to do what we say THEY should do.

Crazy talk!

[treestar]

167. Why is that so bad?

He's a public figure. It is minor name calling. We ourselves get called authoritarians and NSA apologists. And we are posters here with you on DU.

[DirkGently]

183. Just because it's such a transparent rearguard attack on the NSA scandal?

You remember that big foofrah when the leaks first came out. A lot of people were glad to see details of the unconstitutional mass surveillance the NSA was supposed to have stopped way back whenever but didn't, but a handful, rather than arguing that in any meaningful way, tried that juvenile shoot-the-messenger nonsense, with the pole-dancing girlfriend and the "he's an unfriendly neighbor" garbage?

It seemed at the time it was some kind of panicked reaction to the idea the whole thing would harm Obama in some way. Which it didn't, by the way.

I guess, now that Greenwald and the Guardian have been awarded the Pulitzer, and it's impossible to claim with a straight face that the information wasn't critical and valuable and world changing, people assume that going back to the "But but Snowden is a bad guy / traitor / coward / wears mismatched socks" thing is some puerile attempt to put all the NSA toothpaste back in the tube.

Plus, Russia isn't communist anymore, so it's just kind stupid I guess.

[treestar]

219. Well it hasn't changed most people's lives

and they did have a warrant for it - and went back to getting warrants when Bush would not get them. To make a big deal of Comrade Eddie as if he changed the world is exaggeration. It's more trying to get at Obama, rather than us defenders worrying that it would hurt him. It hurt Eddie, for the most part.

[DirkGently]

224. No, it was not "trying to get at Obama." That is your mistake.

Everything is not about Obama. Facts that exist in the world that might in some tangential way indicate the Obama administration is not perfect in every way -- which by the way, it is not -- are not put forward for the sole purpose of offending his fans.

In fact, Republicans never have had a particular problem with the NSA scandal. To this day, amidst all of their yapping about Benghazi and the ACA and whatever else is in their craw, it's only misguided Obama partisans that view the NSA scandal as "about" Obama.

And no, the NSA did not "have a warrant." Not for the mass data collection from Americans suspected of nothing it didn't. Even the FISA court said it violated the Constitution, well after Obama was in office.

And no one worships Snowden. He's a leaker, and the leaks were good, and we are now having a useful conversation about reeling in the out-of-control surveillance state that no one honestly thinks is a good idea, or hasn't gone well beyond any kind of national security or anti-terrorism needs that we may have.

And every time you go with "Eddie" and all that silliness, it just underlines that this is all just silly, petty, spiteful name calling, because there is no reasonable argument to be made that the leaks were a bad and terrible thing just trying to make Obama look bad. And no one is going to discredit the NSA scandal on the theory that we all have contempt for "Eddie" the leaker, or "Eddie, the Commie."

Nobody thinks that.

It is ironic, in fact that calling people Commies to discredit them is the very height of rightwing idiocy.

[enid602]

180. eddie

If we had prez McCain or Romney, I doubt that Eddie woild have rebelled against tthe nsa.

[DirkGently]

210. Right. His motives count more than NSA lawbreaking.

His theoretical motives, mind you.

Right. Obviously not driven by defense of the Obama administration here.

[Maedhros]

272. Maybe the brobdingnagian hypocrisy of the NSA's quasi-Stasi behavior being covered up

by a President who promised the "most transparent Administration ever" is what drove Snowden to action? We'll never know.

I'm just glad this information came to light so that the American public can start fighting back against this nonsense.

[Fumesucker]

185. Exactly why they do it, in order to be irritating..

[DirkGently]

197. Poor form, though. They won. NSA lost. Good for everyone.

The NSA thing was real. No one thinks Snowden was a Russian spy, or on the other hand that he's wonderful in every way. The story was bigger than him, and it was exactly the kind of thing all of us Constitution-loving liberals are supposed to enjoy -- a good whistleblowing on the surveillance state.

Why piss in the Cheerios when it's all over and the mean old lefty journalists and the sneaky private contractor turned out to be right? And it didn't even nick Obama's rep, as was apparently the great fear at the time.

[nashville_brook]

188. they're taking a page from Limbaugh. it's a form of bullying,

and you're right to call it out.

[gulliver]

196. Inmate Eddie would be better.

Just a matter of time.

[MADem]

213. You really don't know what Eddie--Comrade or not--"chose" to do. Neither do I.

Unless you're Eddie, that is.

I'm not, so I'm not pretending to know with any certainty what is in that guy's head.

I will say, his Dog and Pony show with Vlad did him no favors.

Funny how that works, eh?

[Historic NY]

223. Just wait until he pisses off Putin...

right now he has a long leash and Putin is satisified he is annoying the US. Eddie ought to remember the hands that feeds him. In one interview he claims he sought aslym in Russia, now he wants to come home with WB protection. I think he has lost his leverage.

[Peacetrain]

228. +1000

[dipsydoodle]

233. There were also the successful attempts to prevent him flying to Latin America.

He's still in Russia for the lack of an alternative.

[Bobbie Jo]

239. The hero worship is becoming

seriously bizarre.

Some folks are just way too invested in protecting this guy.

[DirkGently]

290. Seriously. Obama is just a President. Imperfect like everyone.

[Bobbie Jo]

293. Who mentioned Obama?

Don't take it personally, just dial it back a notch or two.

Seriously.

[Cha]

242. Snowden's no hero..

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

Eddie's Putin's shill now.. Yeah, he was bragging about going to Iceland and having a sweet gig there after he hacked, ran, and leaked.. but they didn't want him. Course, Russia had no problem with a traitor to the USA.

[obxhead]

247. Defending a poor war of choice

and surveillance in continuing that war is not a good defense for someone who hated the war pre '09.

In other words, if it sucked under Bush, it STILL sucks under Obama. Snowden IS a hero.

[Cha]

249. I disagree.. I think he's a lying libertarian asshole who has made this too much about himself..

and now he has putin for his puppetmaster .

Sen. Nelson: 'Old KGB Officer' Putin Pulling The Strings In Snowden Saga (VIDEO)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sen-nelson-old-kgb-officer-putin-pulling-the-strings-in-snowden-saga-video

[flamingdem]

262. So, he paints just like George Bush

though I suppose Bush is not a hero to him, at least not like Ayn Rand!

[stonecutter357]

318. the stench of libertarian is all over eddie.

[obxhead]

246. Funny how it works indeed.

I've seen countless policies that were raged against under Bush defended vehemently under Obama.

Snowden is a hero, he just happened to do what he did under a a president with a (d) following his name.

[blkmusclmachine]

254. Some of the apologists may be Administration sock puppets paid to influence public opinion, you know

[flamingdem]

263. I always thought it was odd that there were (1) fancy posters for a pro-Snowden demo in Hong Kong

just a couple of days after he landed.. so strange really.. seems like there's more to this story.

Yet some on DU attack long time regular DU supporters (2) calling them out as paid posters?

Now which is more suspicious of these 2 things.

[Maedhros]

383. To what "fancy posters" are you referring?

Can you link to an example?

[HooptieWagon]

307. may be = certainly are.

[wolfie001]

267. Must be lots of NSA lurkers visiting DU these days.

I can understand that their livelihood depends on the unwarranted, illegal spying on innocent Americans, but some of the comments are straight out of Freeperville, USA! Whew.........

[NorthCarolina]

270. Such folks have (a) a conservative agenda, and (b) no credibility...

so why even give them consideration or credibility? Do like me, I read their comments solely for their amusement value.

[Ken Burch]

279. "Comrade Eddie" doesn't work...Russia isn't the USSR anymore.

And Putin is a right-wing Great Russian Nationalist, not a Communist.

[NealK]

299. I doubt that facts will change the mind of these people.

[WillyT]

287. Another Kick !!!

[NealK]

300. That's very childish IMHO.

[HooptieWagon]

302. meh. Name-calling is all they have when their argument is weak. nt

[AgingAmerican]

305. My first though too

They can't defend the indefensible, so they attack the messenger.

[Tarheel_Dem]

303. Reality bites, don't it?

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

Huffpo: "Americans Might Not Support Edward Snowden, But They Support Disclosing Programs"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/edward-snowden-support_n_5071938.html

[Cha]

311. They so piously take offense to "comrade eddie" but freely dish out "authoritarian"/ "nsa

apologist".. can't handle it.. just like their other "god" greenwald..

"Greenwald is notoriously and obviously one of the most thin-skinned "investigative journalists" around. He can dish it out but cannot take it when the camera focuses on him or his protogees. Snowden is either the most naive geek around or his enjoying his moment in the sun a bit too much. To let Putin get away with statements yesterday that Russia doesn't spy on its own people is evidence that Snowden is nurturing and cultivating his Russian hosts in a very unhealthy and hypocritical way, in my opinion."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/glenn-greenwald-edward-snowden-vladimir-putin-call-in-show

That strip was from Nov 3, 2013.. wonder what Danziger thinks of Putin's puppet now?

[Tarheel_Dem]

312. I wish only knew what Danziger thought of this latest stunt, but Charlie Pierce...

and Bill Maher have been scathing. A lot of folks, who were initially grateful for the disclosures about domestic surveillance, are beginning to question the reason he's shooting his mouth off to foreigners. And I say, good on them.

[drynberg]

320. I TOO AM SICK OF THIS COMRADE EDDIE BS, SNOWDEN IS A TRUE PATRIOT

Think about motives...Edward hasn't gained a penny, has been ripped from his home country, probably forever, and he did this because those not blowing the whistle on the NSA, etc. are dupes for a huge freedom take by the US Gov't. What are the consequences, so far, of his "sharing"? The Truth is leaking out, squashing one lie at a time by the Spooks and "Heads of State"...our world is changed (for the better) more than we even know. As for Russia offering Edward Snowden a safe place, he really couldn't be too choosy as his options were one. His call to Putin was pointed at the Russian lie of not listening when they of course do, so how did this help Putin? We need more Snowdens and much less Snowden Bashers.

[merrily]

368. Either way, the USG is massively violating our constitutional rights, and with our money,

and hoped we'd never find out. Bringing in private contractors to do it, too.

That is the issue, not whether Snowden is the Virgin Mary before God knocked her up and sent a stranger to let her in on the good news. Or whether he is Satan either.

All the personal stuff about Greenwald and Snowden = irrelevant. Same with Manning and Assange. The issue is, is the info they passed on to us true or false.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

327. I haven't called him "Comrade Eddie", but I still don't like him...

He may not have chosen to go to Russia. But he DID chose to go to China, and release state secrets to the Chinese. That is NOT whistleblowing. If he did the same thing under ANY sitting President, I would NOT be supportive of him.

The information he released about domestic NSA spying was IDENTICAL to what Drake released, with one exception: the warrant. The warrant we all bitched about when Drake released his info.

So, Snowden is seeking fame off the back of an ACTUAL whistleblower, who did the right thing and went to trial. Which, if you'll notice, his charges were dropped in 2011. THAT is a whistleblower.

So, no love for the NSA here, but no love for Snowden, either.

[Enthusiast]

328. But but but

K&R!

[Phlem]

330. Yes, thank you for this!

Let's be careful however, there are very touchy Sh*&%!$s out there, I got a post hidden yesterday because I was talking about a particularly stupid thread and I used the word "stoopid".

They are blinded by ignorance and pride.

-p

[ellie50]

334. Missing the fourth amendment point

Comrade Eddie? The effectiveness of Surveillance?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Anyone remember the Fourth amendment?

Our legislators should not be discussing amnesty and forgiveness for Comrade Eddie. They should be discussing it for themselves. They are the ones who failed in their oath, failed with their oversight, allowed a surveillance state without public diiscussion, allowed a contractor to make off with so much data.

If only Dianne Feinstein had one fifth the integrity of Comrade Eddie.

[randome]

336. How often does this need to be explained?

There is no 4th amendment protection of third-party business records.

There are no 4th amendment protections regarding international spying.

I really think it's as simple as that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

341. Except of course NSA does violate the Constitution.

As you and the FISA / FISC courts know, what they've actually been doing is scooping up mountains of domestic data on Americans without adequate oversight.

No on the face of the Earth believes for a moment that NSA domestic surveillance has not been in violation of the 4th Amendment protections of Americans.

It's not that people don't understand your "explanation." It's that the explanation ignores what's actually happening.

https://www.eff.org/document/october-3-2011-fisc-opinion-holding-nsa-surveillance-unconstitutional

October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional

The government claims sweeping authority under the Patriot Act to collect a record of every single phone call made by every single American "on an ongoing daily basis." This program not only exceeds the authority given to the government by Congress, but it violates the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, and the rights of free speech and association protected by the First Amendment. For this reason, the ACLU challenged the government's collection of our phone records under the Patriot Act just days after the program was revealed in June 2013 by The Guardian.

https://www.aclu.org/time-rein-surveillance-state-0

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-surveillance-procedures

[randome]

343. The first link is a ruling by the FISC. One of the very courts some here don't see as legitimate.

But it's a ruling about minimization procedures.

2nd link is about the metadata.

3rd link refers to people outside the country and it was endorsed by the very FISC in your first link. So you approve of FISC in one case but not the other.

The minimization procedures are not always clear-cut. They can't be in today's information age. You get the authority to copy some terrorist suspect's email and you're bound to get some email in that mailbox belonging to an American citizen. You can't 'unsee' emails belonging only to citizens. In fact, if you were going to do that, you would need to examine every email, read it and then determine if it belonged to an American or not. Which makes no sense.

It's not feasible. Communications technology has changed and the NSA's procedures need to change, as well.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[DirkGently]

346. "Procedures" are exactly where the abuse occurs.

We have one problem with the Patriot Act which allowed a lot of overreach.

We have a separate problem with NSA designing its own procedures as to how to stay within even the over broad provisions of the new laws.

You heard Clapper, lying his ass off to Congress. The whole "not wittingly" thing? The courts don't sign off on every procedure NSA puts in place to supposedly stay within its mandate.

They're not even trying. NSA adopted a "grab everything" policy, because it could, because there was no oversight, and just as it and its predecessors have always done, it prefers to have everyone's private information, all the time, to use as it sees fit.

That's not okay.

They didn't hang a toe over the line, or "not wittingly" grab things they weren't supposed to. They rationalized and exploited and got caught, thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of people, including the Guardian and its Snowden-leaked materials, which the ACLU has explicitly thanked for aiding in the fight to claw some semblance of reason back from the sprawling surveillance state.

[mainer]

348. His choice was Iceland. But he couldn't go there

because the US made it clear to Iceland that we would not be happy if they took him in.

The recent Vanity Fair article about Snowden is fascinating, tense, and eye-opening. Very good writing, too.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/04/edward-snowden-vf-audio

[mainer]

350. Read this Vanity Fair article first. Then try to call him comrade Eddie.

Only a portion is available online; you have to buy the magazine for the entire, fascinating saga.

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

[Aerows]

354. For those that state he would be called "Traitor"

no matter what administration he revealed these violations against the Constitution, I offer you this.

You are correct. It would just depend on what party would be calling him "traitor." That, of course, depends under which administration he revealed the violations of the Constitution. You know it, I know it, everyone with two brain cells to rub together know it.

DU2 prior to January 20, 2009 was especially concerned about the surveillance state (I refuse to call it the security state because it offers no security and certainly fails to protect us against domestic terrorists and mass murderers). The archives are there for all to see.

Massive, invasive state surveillance has *NEVER* in the course of history *EVER* benefited the constituents and citizens of such a state of surveillance.

Explain it as an explosion of technological ability, rehash it as protection for the citizens, and you know what you get? The justifications made by every single government in history that did it. If you want to know where it leads, open a damn history book, and see how *they* were also threatened by a populace that knew more than they "should".

People scream technology like this is the first time humankind has ever made an advancement in communications. NO.

Again, open a history book. Go as far back as you like, then ask yourself "are these the same excuses, are these the same motives, and how did that turn out for the people?"

I dare you.

[NCTraveler]

373. I don't get how calling him Comrade Eddie could bother anyone.

And your op didn't clarify how. It is pretty obvious as to why he is called that. Obama is likened to a used care salesman here. How does Comrade Eddie even enter on your radar?

[malaise]

376. K & R

+1,000