MSNBC Anchor Says Snowden is a Distraction

[rdubwiley]

[midnight]

1. Snowden has distracted Mellisa and now she is starting to ask questions about a program

that up until know she didn't have to discuss...

[BlueStreak]

2. You are giving this the most charitable interpretation

to wit, that Melissa H-P is taking that stance simply because she works for a network that is very much dependent on the Security Industrial Complex, and her personal future in this business probably goes more smoothly if she takes that position.

Fair enough. That is one explanation, and maybe the correct one. But she also has the option (I presume) to simply not address that subject at all.

But for weeks we have been hearing that if anybody asked any questions about Zimmerman's presumed guilt, then that person must be a racist. Well, I would pose the same proposition about an anti-Snowden stance. Could it be that her objection is really caused because she perceives Snowden's actions as harmful to President Obama and his legacy? In other words, is her position racially motivated?

I'd like to believe that is not the case, but I really haven't heard any principled arguments against Snowden from the left. Every anti-Snowden argument I have heard from the left ultimately boils down to "How dare he hurt our President?"

[rdubwiley]

3. Hmm

I'm not a big fan of a racial interpretation, unless there's a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. It might be the case that she's justifying her actions, because she admires Obama.

As to the Security Industrial Complex, I'm not sure how that affects her directly.

[BlueStreak]

6. 2 points

a) I am not a fan of the "racist" (my word, not yours) interpretation, and clearly her coverage of a news story is nowhere close to outright racism. But our history as a nation has all sorts of racially-inspired biases -- some subtle and some not so subtle. Where is the boundary between a deep admiration for Obama because of who he is and what he has done, versus a pre-disposition to come to his defense because they share a racial background? Denying that possibility is no different then me (a white guy) claiming that I feel as deeply about Trayvon Martin's death as many black folks.

b) There is a DIRECT connection to the S.I.C. She works for NBC, which has been a division of GE, which makes a huge load of money as a gun-runner to the world. Many of the people in that company are still very close to the GE heritage. The company is moving under control of Comcast. There the ownership picture is not as clear cut. Certainly a large chunk of the Comcast ownership is huge institutions that also have huge holdings in the S.I.C. And I bet you would find a lot of interlocking board membership. These giant corporations are all just different faces of the same club. A person going against the S.I.C. will not last long in that club.

[shawn703]

4. My argument against Snowden

Is that he caused grave damage to national security when he released information to China, Europe and Latin America about where and how we are watching them. I think most of us would agree that foreign surveillance is necessary for national security. In just about every discussion I've had on this topic, whenever I say my problem with Snowden is what he did in regards to foreign surveillance, I always get the response "but spying on Americans is bad!" I never argue anything about spying on Americans, because I think I'm of like mind with most pro-Snowden folks on that issue. I just don't feel we should be giving him a pass on what information he leaked to foreign countries about our surveillance on them - such surveillance is reasonable and necessary, and providing details to those being watched about how we're doing it certainly damaged our intelligence efforts in that arena.

[spooky3]

5. But what evidence do you have of that?

I've heard people speculate about this but have yet to hear it articulated exactly what he revealed regarding China, etc., and exactly what consequences followed directly from that revelation.

And what if those specific actions violate international law?

Without knowing any of this, I can't agree that "most people" would probably support all of these actions.

[BlueStreak]

7. Thank you. That is my question as well.

I have not heard anything that should cause "grave danger"" to the US. The things I have seen from Snowden would cause grave danger to the industry that thrives of these dark, unaccountable, endless budgets.

My view is that disclosure of THAT makes Americans safer in the long run.

The issue here is "Americans" versus "America". They used to be the same thing -- you know, "We the people". But they are no longer the same thing, and I would advise anybody making an argument against Snowden to be very clear whether one is talking about the interests of "America" or the interests of "Americans". They are becoming opposites and I will not accept a blurring of the two as legitimate argumentation.

[spooky3]

27. good points that many people overlook

[shawn703]

8. For example

The SCMP reported that Snowden revealed dates and IP addresses of specific Chinese computers that were targeted.

http://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-hacking-targets

[spooky3]

24. Vague opinions expressed by the quoted official do not constitute evidence and

do not address my point about the specifics.

If, for example, you went before even one of the TV judges and said your neighbor's post about you on Facebook had caused you "great harm" but provided no evidence, even they would laugh you out of their courtroom.

Further, Snowden himself was quoted by the same article that you linked as saying:

"I don't know what specific information they were looking for on these machines, only that using technical exploits to gain unauthorised access to civilian machines is a violation of law. It's ethically dubious," Snowden said in the interview on Wednesday.

If he is correct, then (a) even he doesn't know many specifics (other than IP addresses, which he obviously mentioned to the media to provide specific evidence of wrongdoing in what was probably the least harmful way) and there is no evidence of genuine harm to the US from his revelation, and (b) these governmental actions are illegal and unethical and we have no right to engage in them. We know THOSE ACTIONS harm us and our reputation throughout the world (as well as harming others) and that should be a concern. And it is more than a little ironic that we have criticized China for hacking into private computers in the US to steal intellectual property, etc., if we are also hacking into private computers there.

[shawn703]

29. I contend that

Providing information about which computers were being monitored and at what times is damaging in and of itself, regardless of what they were specifically looking for on those machines. What they were looking for specifically is immaterial, the fact that they could look into these machines at will is what was valuable. Perhaps we disagree on the ethics of any kind of spying at all. From my standpoint, if China was a house with five different locks securing it, I would want us to have a key or keys to get us past all five of their locks. If they figure out we have even one of the keys to their locks and they change that lock - well then there's parts of that house we no longer have access to and who knows what kind of plots they could be cooking up in that room until we figure out how to get the key for the new lock.

Not only that but China could then inform countries that are allied with them but not us about the keys they figured out we have, which means we lose visibility into their activities as well.

In cyberwarfare, I also disagree that there is a difference between military and civilian machines. Civilians with Internet access and technical know-how can become cyber-combatants by downloading a script and running attacks against machines in a foreign IP range. Governments could create a "botnet army" using civilian machines without knowledge of the owners of those machines. Is cyberwarfare even covered by international laws regarding war at this point, or are the ethicists still trying to make square pegs fit in round holes?

[cantbeserious]

9. Supposition Is Not The Same As Facts

eom

[shawn703]

10. The facts are there

Check the SCMP article linked to above where he provided specific dates and IP addresses of targeted computers.

[cantbeserious]

11. All Here Say Evidence Conveniently Corroborated By The FBI - Does One Expect The Government To Be Honest

I Don't - Snowden's revelations make this one even more suspicious of the government,

[shawn703]

12. I'm not sure I follow

Not trying to be a pain in the ass - but are we both still talking about targets in China that we had access to?

[cantbeserious]

14. I Am Writing About The Article I Was Pointed To Up Thread As Validating Snowden's Guilt

eom

[shawn703]

16. So you disagree with this part?

FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee: "These disclosures have caused significant harm to our nation and to our safety. We are taking all necessary steps to hold the person responsible for these disclosures," he said.

Is it that you don't believe any disclosures were made, or that you don't believe they caused harm to our nation?

[cantbeserious]

19. I Am Saying That I No Longer Trust Things Said By Minions Of The Government Justifying Their Actions

eom

[Thinkingabout]

13. Snowden "revealed" information in which George W spoke publicly about in 2005, how

Can he qualify as a whistleblower when the information was already public. He did nit have the right to steal, this makes him a thief, because he released information from the NSA where he was employed under Code of Ethics and was informed of espionage charges if he revealed information he has been charged with espionage and other felony charges. He is on the lam and he could return to the US to face charges but the immoral spy and lie kid has not made the move. He could possibly plead down the charges in exchange for revealing the details of the cause and the puppet masters. Since he has had the reputation of revealing before then he could continue and help himself.

[cantbeserious]

15. What Did He Steal That Was Not Already Stolen From Citizens By Desecrating The 4th Amendment

eom

[Thinkingabout]

17. Stolen? it was obtained by warrants, the Fourth does not specify where the warrant is obtained.

The one who did not have a warrant was Spy and Lie Snowden.

[cantbeserious]

18. Warrants All Rubber Stamped By Justice Roberts Secret Court - I Place No Faith In Such Warrants

eom

[Thinkingabout]

20. And you have faith in a thief, wow, guess I dont trust a thief. Spy and Lie.

[cantbeserious]

21. You Have Faith In The Government - I Hope That Faith Is Not Misplaced - I No Longer Share Your Faith

eom

[Thinkingabout]

22. I sure dont trust a thief, so i choose to stay away from thieves.

[cantbeserious]

23. And I Sure Don't Intend To Place My Faith In A Government That Spies On Its Citizens

eom

[Thinkingabout]

25. So you trust a thief whi spies on you and gives the information to whomever he pleases, keep

Trusting the thief, I will not. You may look at gubermint as nothing to trust but you will need to deal with your issues yourself.

[cantbeserious]

26. On This Matter We Will Have To Agree To Disagree

eom

[Thinkingabout]

28. Do you ever use public transportation or even the internet?