regarding Edward Snowden, the point is being missed I suspect...

[Soylent Brice]

So I lurk mostly, and I have the fortune of getting to read a lot more than if I were posting. Some of the things I've seen posted on the Snowden/NSA debate range from rather informative to completely ridiculous.

No, you are not a libertarian by default just because you are "pro Snowden".

On the subject of that; so-called " pro Snowden" vs "anti(?)" (I guess? lol)

That's super, I don't know... immature?
I mean, really, the point is being missed I think.

Let's look at it this way:

If Snowden had leaked when GWB (shrub, fortunate son, chimpy, whichever your preference was, my personal fave was commander in thief) was in office, would we be so divided?

If it had been a republican instead of Snowden that leaked would we be even less divided and be nearly totally against this leaker?

If this had been leaked by dem or repuke during chimpy's reign would we be divided at all, or completely united because of our common enemy?

I mean, fuck, Smedley Butler would've been totally fucking railroaded by half of us if the Business Plot had taken place in the last year. Which is quite surreal and totally fucked if you really think about it.

So really, the point is this:

Why bother with who he is, what he is, how he votes, what his motives are, what actions he took afterwards, what countries he may or may not have given any info to, what reality show he likes, what he masturbates too, etc...

I don't give a shit about any of that.
Its not about him. And I don't give two fucks about the repercussions of what he does with that info now that it has been leaked. Not one damn do I give. I could care less.
Whatever happens, well guess what, that's called consequences.

I don't know, maybe our government shouldn't be doing this shit.
I know it's a novel idea, but bear with me.

I have an idea, let's not get distracted with the leaker, or the tension and calamity created from the leaks. Instead just stop for a second and concentrate on the fact that our own government is doing these things. Not just to other nations, allies, and so on.

They're doing this... to us.

We are no longer protected by our own constitution. Apparently we haven't been for quite a while. Now that we have that knowledge what do we do with it? Nothing. Absofuckinglutely nothing.
Wait, I take that back. We fight each other. Yeah, that's worse. We fight each other instead of the real problem; unchecked, unfettered, unconstitutional, widespread surveillance of American citizens.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm kind of not cool with that.


So yeah, that's about all I have to say I guess.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. 92% of DU gets it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024855125

Just a small, angry group of prolific posters who don't.

[Soylent Brice]

4. woah... lol

Maybe they're just obnoxiously loud?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. 24/7

The Swarm.

[Soylent Brice]

9. gawd, that sounds awful.

Not gonna lie, the monicker made me giggle though.

I pictured a B horror movie:

"Just when you thought it was okay to defend a leaker of evil corrupt government wrongdoings, out comes...."

THE SWARM!!!

lol

[MannyGoldstein]

10. It *is* a B horror movie

It's called "my life".

[Soylent Brice]

23. I just laughed so loud

It scared my cat off my pillow.

I am indebted to you for eternity.

[MannyGoldstein]

131. Oh great.

Now the denizens of the Cats group will be hounding me for specieism or some such thing.

[sheshe2]

28. Oh Noooos!!@!!

[sabrina 1]

31. Most people have them on ignore! Lol!

[sheshe2]

35. Well good for them! LoL!

[bobduca]

105. They have a safe harbor to be obnoxious

They are compensated in endorphins when their fellow 25 pro-smear posters give them high-fives and roffle waffles.

[OilemFirchen]

11. Holy Shit!

137 of 214,180 DU posters responded "favorably" to a push poll! That's 6.39648893454104e-4%!

I swear to god I didn't know that numbers could be that small. Honest!

[MannyGoldstein]

12. A push poll?

How do you figure?

[OilemFirchen]

14. "Glad" vs. "Sad"?

Why wasn't Owie a choice? Bibble? Numnum?

[MannyGoldstein]

15. And?

It might suck, but I think it sucks in an unbiased way.

[OilemFirchen]

16. That should become your moniker.

Very descriptive!

[MannyGoldstein]

18. "I might suck, but I suck in an unbiased way"

I like it, but many would say it's too kind.

[sheshe2]

29. You crack me up Manny!

You really do.

[sabrina 1]

32. Lol!

[sheshe2]

33. Back at ya!

[sabrina 1]

38. Lol! And back at YA!

I love DU! But not for serious stuff, for that we go elsewhere!

[sheshe2]

45. We?

Wow!

Where do ya'll post for all that serious stuff. Is Manny there too? Give me the link please where ya'll post. I would love to read the in depth comments there!

Thanks in advance for your help.

[MannyGoldstein]

132. over at the Cave.

Duh.

[rhett o rick]

135. If you are referring to The Third Way FB page, Manny isnt allowed.

Well maybe Third Way Manny is.

[Soylent Brice]

17. I like pie.

Okay, we get it. Stastically small sampling of the community as a whole, yada yada.
We'll just ignore the fact that's how like all polls generally work.

Details.

I digress.

So. Hi. How are you. Nice to meet you,
Do you like pie?

[OilemFirchen]

19. No.

But thanks for asking.

I'm off to beddy-bye. Ask Manny.

[Soylent Brice]

21. pffft... everyone knows Manny likes pie.

Silly.

[ZombieHorde]

59. A push poll is when the question is the point, as opposed to the votes.

For example: "How do you feel about SOS John Kerry saying Israel is engaged in an Apartheid?"

This example twists what Kerry said to make his position look more extreme than it is. The asker doesn't care very much about how people vote, the asker mostly just wants to push that twisted talking point.

[Number23]

58. 155 now, dude! That's like 2/3 of the recs that the weekly Kitty thread gets!!

[OilemFirchen]

72. And the Swarm is stuck at three.

Still, I'd wear a hat, just in case.

[Obnoxious_One]

63. most poll outcomes are determined on a less than 1% of total sample size.

300 million Americans and most published polls will only survey between 400 to 1500 people.

[OilemFirchen]

71. I just polled my spouse.

Both of us (100%) agree that your point is irrelevant.

[Obnoxious_One]

101. Of course you do.

Authoritarians are quick disregard facts that do not conform with their preconceptions.

[OilemFirchen]

141. You've met the lovely Ms. Firchen, I take it.

FTR, though, we are both disestablishmentarians. Except for the food.

[bemildred]

75. All poll outcomes are determined by the sample, period. That's your "data".

Sample size determines the probable accuracy of the poll, assumiing the poll methodology does not suck. And the whole idea of polling it that your sample size need not be proportional to the total population size.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. What percentage of the people that viewed the poll thought "push poll"

and said pppppffffffftttttttt and moved on without answering at all?

[bemildred]

79. We have no way to answer that question.

I ignore most polls, like I ignore most threads. People who answer are the people who are still engaged with the question, whatever it is the poll is about. All internet poll samples are self-selected, i.e. not random. The silent majority is just that, silent.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. So who gives a rat's about this poll then....its meaningless...

[bemildred]

83. Clearly. nt

[L0oniX]

102. ...and out of 65,490,495 posts since 2001 which even makes your response more worthless.

[OilemFirchen]

140. The poll is worthless.

My response was pitiful.

Your response to my response is priceless.

[brush]

30. Most posters get that Snowden should be commended . . .

for revealing the NSA 4th amendment violations against US citizens. What some of us also keeping mentioning is that Snowden/Greenwald/Poitras went too far in giving away details of their own country's covert operations.

Does anyone really want us not to gather info on what international terrorists are doing, or what rival countries are up to?

And does anyone thing that if the US stops international covert operations we would be better off, or that other countries would also stop?

C'mon already.

[sabrina 1]

36. What 'terrorists'?

Every country in the world has to deal with 'terrorists'. It is a police action. The US has tried to turn this into a forever war that requires the American people to relinquish all the rights that supposedly the 'terrorists hate us for' in order to be 'safe'. What utter nonsense. And airc, we LAUGHED at Bush for making this claim! When did the Left decide that Bush was RIGHT after all?

Face it, it is a scam of mammoth proportions. We are in more danger from OTHER AMERICANS than these phantom 'terrorists' they are using to get us to give up our rights.

'The enemy is within'!

[brush]

48. Did you not get that I said Snowden should be commended . . .

for revealing 4th amendment violations against US citizens. And of course no one is advocating the American people relinquish their rights (how did you possibly get "scam of mammoth proportions" out of my post?)

As far as terrorists, laugh all you want and call covert operations against terrorists and others utter nonsense but try this link if you think the international leaks were harmless:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024887934

[JDPriestly]

46. Actually, polls are usually based on relatively small samples of the population.

And while I am at it, what poll are people talking about? Do you have a link?

[dionysus]

47. his own poll;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024855125

[JDPriestly]

51. The results of that poll leave no doubt that a huge percentage of DUers approve of Snowden's

actions.

The margin of approval is so high that even the small sample could not possibly result in a significant doubt that most DUers approve of Snowden's revealing the NSA surveillance.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. You've forgotten about my magic powers?

Poll results are no match for my mojo.

Who among us can forget my role as Obi Wan Kenobi?

[L0oniX]

103. Thanks for the link ...I just kicked and rec'd that poll.

[Obnoxious_One]

62. Yeah but if you look at the user names on that poll

You'll see that several of the rabid Snowden bashers listed themselves as 'other' and the most rabid attackers are a complete no show.

[rhett o rick]

133. "Prolific posters" but only in ant-whistle blower threads.

There is quite a range of subjects that they all (what a coincidence) avoid. But I musnt go any farther. The last time I did, they got me (it only took four). But I am not complaining. DU is a great place to discuss and learn about issues.

[1000words]

2. You should post more often

[Soylent Brice]

7. awww shucks!

Seriously though. That was awfully sweet, thank you!

[ProSense]

3. People can

Why bother with who he is, what he is, how he votes, what his motives are, what actions he took afterwards, what countries he may or may not have given any info to, what reality show he likes, what he masturbates too, etc...

I don't give a shit about any of that.
Its not about him. And I don't give two fucks about the repercussions of what he does with that info now that it has been leaked. Not one damn do I give. I could care less.
Whatever happens, well guess what, that's called consequences.

I don't know, maybe our government shouldn't be doing this shit.
I know it's a novel idea, but bear with me.

I have an idea, let's not get distracted with the leaker, or the tension and calamity created from the leaks. Instead just stop for a second and concentrate on the fact that our own government is doing these things. Not just to other nations, allies, and so on.

They're doing this... to us.

We are no longer protected by our own constitution. Apparently we haven't been for quite a while. Now that we have that knowledge what do we do with it? Nothing. Absofuckinglutely nothing.
Wait, I take that back. We fight each other. Yeah, that's worse. We fight each other instead of the real problem; unchecked, unfettered, unconstitutional, widespread surveillance of American citizens.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm kind of not cool with that.

...multitask. Reform the NSA and hold Snowden, Putin's tool, accountable for the crimes he has been charged with:

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

Many people who oppose NSA overreach and recognize the value of the debate also don't approve of Snowden's actions that go beyond sparking a debate about the NSA's domestic activities. In the end, a trial is required to hold him accountable.

I stand with Jimmy Carter:

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/

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

I stand with anyone who recognizes that one doesn't have defend Snowden, Putin's tool, to be on the "right side of history."

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.

In line with the OP question: Were you against Clarke when he went after Bush? Were you for Scooter Libby when he leaked Plame's identity?

[Soylent Brice]

6. I'm guessing the Ctrl, c, and v keys are almost illegible on your PC.

Just a guess.

Honestly though, I know that's like your thing but a straightforward reply would've been cool.
I love Bernie but what I'm talking about isn't concerned with politician's opinions.

Multitask? Right. I don't believe telling the truth is a crime. Ever. Oath? Let's talk about oaths. How about the oath you take for elected office. You know, the one about defending and upholding the constitution.

...

[ProSense]

8. Ah,

"Multitask? Right. I don't believe telling the truth is a crime. Ever. Oath? Let's talk about oaths. How about the oath you take for elected office. You know, the one about defending and upholding the constitution."

...so it's not that you want people to focus on the issue, it's that you don't agree that Snowden committed a "crime."

Did you see this:

Five things Obama's Big Data experts warned him about
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024899121

[Soylent Brice]

13. yeah, don't care. remember, consequences.

The government committed a crime. Saying Snowden committed a crime is like jailing someone who calls 911 because they watched someone steal their car, and their neighbors car, and then tells their neighbor that their car was stolen too.

Only to have the cops hunt them down.

So yeah. Don't spy on everyone. Because the constitution.
See, what's really ridiculous is that I know you know this, so with every debate I see you get into about this it just makes me even more curious why you think people don't notice what you're doing.

[sabrina 1]

25. Excellent points, so Snowden 'broke a law'. Too bad HE had to do that. Too bad those we elected

to protect the Constitution of the US 'against all enemies, both foreign and domestic' didn't have the GUTS to speak up and abide by the oaths they took when we gave them the job they swore to do.

But there is a SC precedent which says that if the information revealed is in the interests of the American People, it supercedes any laws that need to be broken in order to get that information to the people. Ellsberg benefited from that. The SC has already spoken on this issue.

[Soylent Brice]

27. this. yes. ^^^

[uponit7771]

64. BULLLLLLLLL FUCKIN SHIT!!!

He didn't have to do that the way he did...

Now the clown and his lawyers are saying he couldn't go through proper channels after they said they DID go through proper channels to blow the whistle.

[Sheepshank]

113. yeah agreed!...as it turns out, facts don't hit the right histrionic notes for many prolific posters

they have their regurgitate talking points and stick to them like glue, lol

I remember the dishonesty being promoted that Snowden was forced to go to Russia (by the USA)...at least she isn't repeating that piece of garbage any more.

[Soylent Brice]

20. well, thanks for the chat.

Copy paste ya later!

[BrotherIvan]

42. Your thread & responses are some of the funniest on DU

If you could do a tag team with Manny, I'd pay for tickets.

[OilemFirchen]

73. Funny Glad, or funny Sad? (n/t)

[Capt. Obvious]

68. LOL

It takes a lot of time to copy pasta 24/7.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. if its not "about Snowden" as they always proclaim

then they shouldn't give a rat's ass if he serves time for his crimes....yet THAT is when it suddenly becomes ABOUT Snowden...

Hilarious!

[rhett o rick]

134. "defending and upholding the constitution." for some is only important during Republican Admin.

I honestly dont believe that Pres Obama would use the "indefinite detention" authority, but what should happen if Jeb wins in 2016?

[sabrina 1]

22. Could you summarize your point so we can tell where you stand on this democracy? N/T

[Soylent Brice]

24. I gave up

It's like trying to read a ransom note.

[sabrina 1]

26. Well, you have to understand, it's hard trying to defend the indefensible. I am awed by the attempts

to do so.

But in the end, it really is simple. We still have a Constitution. Spying on the American people violates that Constitution. Snowden exposed violations of the Constitution. Any attempts to try to justify those treasonous violations, make zero sense and expose a real problem in this country AND a question: 'Are we a Democracy or have we abandoned the idea entirely'. Polls seem to say we have no abandoned the idea of Democracy. So now, how do we bring the treasonous violators to justice?

[JDPriestly]

49. Do you agree with the NSA spying on you and me and all of us?

Do you agree that the NSA should collect all our metadata?

I don't. And Edward Snowden doesn't. And I am grateful to Edward Snowden for having revealed to the American people how our own government is spying on our electronic communications.

Who cares about Snowden? I don't care what crime he committed because the crime that the NSA and anyone who spies on my electronic communications is doing is far worse.

The NSA is stealing my personal data including, most likely, my medical records, my financial records, my communications with my family, and all kinds of other personal communications. It is absolutely horrible.

The NAZIs didn't do that. And we all condemned the USSR for doing far less in terms of surveillance. The East Germans would have loved to place all its citizens under surveillance but most likely did not have the technology.

Edward Snowden did not steal from the American people. He gave back to us the information that our government is stealing from us the American people.

What percentage of the American people do you think are terrorists? What percentage does the NSA consider to be terrorist suspects? Are you a terrorist? I am not. And if I am obviously not a terrorist, the government has no business spying on me on the excuse that they are looking for terrorists.

The government is most definitely not spying on so many Americans because the government thinks that is a way to identify terrorists. I do not for a minute think that could be the motive. If it is, Obama needs to appoint some new people to take charge of the NSA's department that looks for terrorists. Because looking at the e-mails and electronic data on millions of ordinary Americans is not going to turn up the terrorists. No way.

[Luminous Animal]

57. The predictable appeals to authority.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. That's the 3rd time in just over 24 hours you've tried to compare this to Libby revealing Plame

and it's the second time you've incorrectly asked about "In line with the OP question", when there isn't an OP question, because you're too lazy to rewrite your previous post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024892625#post7
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024893381#post14

This is just spam. You cut and paste a huge post you've made twice before, without bothering to talk properly to DUers. What's more, "Were you for Scooter Libby when he leaked Plame's identity?" is a load of right wing crap that you should be ashamed to be spamming DU with.

Mind you, you've been repeating it some time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024844419#post1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640825#post199
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024571462#post27
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024843963#post126

I never thought you could be so dumb, or right wing, to claim that there is any similarity between Libby being part of a government conspiracy to discredit Wilson the whistleblower, and Snowden who is a whistleblower.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Pro if you could find a quote of Elizabeth Warren saying he is a criminal.....

Then you would have "irrefutable" polling results!!!

[bobduca]

121. "And Ye Shall Know Them By Their Roffle Waffles" DU-teronomy 4:20

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. but I don't even eat waffles?

nor do I play Counter-Strike!

[Luminous Animal]

34. There are only about 10 people here who are trying to propagandize us into submission

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Granted, they are remarkably prolific and somehow manage to stay awake 24/7; but still, they are few and we are legion.

[dionysus]

40. !

[bobduca]

123. You know you've got them all when

when you page through the BOG and you see no posts.

[L0oniX]

124. OK that made me laugh.

[Bobbie Jo]

125. and?

[sheshe2]

41. Care to name them?

Oh and "We are legion". Yikes I am diving under the covers right now!



You are here...I scared now.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Is your alert trigger finger getting itchy?

[giftedgirl77]

52. Into submission of what?

[Luminous Animal]

54. That Snowden is a poopiehead.

[giftedgirl77]

55. Ok, just making sure I hadn't missed anything serious.

I was holding my breath fearing the worst thinking DU had gone full mad on me.

[woo me with science]

91. LOL. Well observed.

[drmeow]

37. From a fellow lurker

I couldn't agree with you more. Mostly I just ignore the Snowden threads because, like you, I couldn't give a flying fuck about who he is, why he did it, or how he did it. I just want the government to stop.

[JDPriestly]

43. K&R.

[Dragonfli]

44. One of the best posts I have read in a while

I only hope that those that need to understand it actually do.

[DeSwiss]

50. K&R

[dreamnightwind]

60. K & R

Love the OP and all of your responses here. No need to lurk, though I mostly do the same, it's tiresome engaging with people who are interested only in partisan progress and not in actual progress.

I never got the Snowden outrage at all, why is he even a part of the NSA discussion? He's a messenger, delivering bad news we all need to hear. For that I thank him, though I know nothing about him and don't care, it's not about him and any attempt to make it so is obviously nothing more than a diversion.

[Obnoxious_One]

61. Amen, thanks for saying that.

[Skittles]

65. just put the Tiger Beat crowd on Ignore

it is pure hypocrisy and they will come around in 2017

[carolinayellowdog]

138. you think DU can survive three more years of organized bullying rightwing hatemongering?

I don't.

[Skittles]

139. yes - just put them on Ignore

it is ODS and it is temporary

[hootinholler]

66. Smedly exposed a threat to the D President

I hope that similar circumstance would not be met with castigation. However, I will grant you may be right.

Since I have a suspicion that a similar threat has rolled our President, which explains the apparent change of heart regarding populist issues after election.

[RandoLoodie]

67. DU is infested with RW trolls

concern trolls, cause trolls, pay-per-post trolls, etc.

Alas, so are most discussion oriented platforms on the Internets.

[cyberswede]

100. One less now, apparently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313197&sub=trans

[giftedgirl77]

129. ....

[randome]

69. You can dispute the numbers but you have to admit that...

...at least a sizeable number of DUers don't see that Snowden's 'revelations' have amounted to much.

It isn't necessary to bang our heads against a wall to contradict one another. Reasonable minds should be able to see there is more than one valid point of view.

For most of us, the metadata 'issue' has been known since 2007. For most of us, NSA spying on other countries is a non-issue.

But look at the responses in this thread. Is this indicative of 'reasonable minds'? Calling everyone who disagrees with the idea of Snowden as a hero is a 'RW troll' or an 'authoritarian'.

Snowden keeps putting himself front and center and too many on DU want to see him as a hero. So of course the 'debate' ends up being about him when reasonable minds disagree on the 'evidence'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[SomethingFishy]

89. And you can claim that people call Snowden a "HERO"

yet you are the only person in this thread who used that word. I have seen maybe a total of 5 people call him an actual hero.

The OP specifically says "it's not about him".

The people I see "keeping Snowden front and center" are the ones trying to discredit him. And I say him because no one seems to manage to discredit the papers he gave to Greenwald, just the man himself. I popped in yesterday after 2 weeks on the road and I had not even had a thought about him. Yet the very first thread I saw was diatribe against Snowden posted by one of the usual folks.

I don't understand why people think that the Snowden revelations are a bane against Obama. They are a bane against the "real" government. You know the guys behind the scenes, the ones who don't get elected, the ones who really run things. When Obama leaves office, no matter whop comes in after him, the same people will be running the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the DOD...

I never saw Snowdens revelations as a shot at Obama, I saw them as a shot against the government... The "real" government.

[randome]

92. Well now you're trying to make it about Obama. I never mentioned him.

We disagree on the papers released by Greenwald and Snowden. I don't see that they amount to much. Spying on other countries? Meh. The NSA has the capability of being Big Brother? Who doesn't? Again, meh.

And remember that when Bush was President, Snowden said leakers "should be shot in the balls". So, yes, I do see his motives as suspect, especially when combined with the 'evidence' that many people don't see as worth the trouble.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

74. Nope, no points are being missed. There are several problems with your thesis.

Problem #1 - The President was already publicly talking about a need to have a national discussion about whether the Surveillance program infringed too much on privacy. Here is his speech two weeks before Snowden leaked his information. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses -- hardening targets, tightening transportation security, giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values -- by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

.
.
.
Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. But we have to recognize that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them.

And these questions matter to every American.

For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home. Our servicemembers and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions that we are making now will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.

So, the idea that Snowden started the conversation, or that there was no possibility we could know that the Surveillance program might be more than we would possibly accept privacy wise doesn't work.

Problem #2 - We have no idea if the documents Snowden took were authentic or reflect actual programs in existence. And that problem derives directly from his refusal to go through official channels.

Anyone who has ever worked at a medium or large sized firm with a document management system knows that there are tons of project proposal documents in the repository for projects that never were actually implemented. In fact, there are many more project plans and proposals in the repository for projects that were never implemented for various reasons than for those that were put into operation. Even the documents that reflect projects that were implemented often have many changes associated. So we don't know if what Snowden took reflects actual projects in operation, even if those projects were ultimately put in operation, we don't know if there were changes that make a big difference. We also don't know from a document whether the project is in operation all the time or just put into operation in the case of certain contingencies.

If Snowden had approached a congressman, senator or one of the intelligence inspector generals, an investigation would have ensued that had folks with the proper clearance who could determine what programs were in place and proceed from there.

In short, because of the very way that Snowden handled this, we have no idea of the veracity and accuracy of the documents.

Problem #3 - Unlike someone like Daniel Ellsberg, he fled rather than face the challenges of what he did. And he fled to two of Americas global antagonists putting classified documents at risk and potentially into the hands of the two countries with the most potential to do damage to the US with that information.

Problem #4 - His ridiculous hyperbolic statements lend more to the conclusion that this guy is a sophomoric fool who has no idea what was really going on and is a publicity hound with delusions of grandeur. To wit:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/listen-edward-snowden-defend-whistleblowers


"Do you think it's right that the NSA is collecting more information about Americans in America than it is about Russians in Russia?" Snowden asked. "Because that's what our systems do. We watch our own people more closely than we watch any other population in the world." Snowden explained how he himself could have spied on any person, "from a federal judge to the president of the United States," from his own desk, as long as he had an e-mail address or other digital identifier of the target. "When you make a purchase, when you buy a book. All of that is collected," Snowden said. "I could see it at my desk, crossing my screen."

Problem #5 - Related to Problem #1, As EFF points out, much was already happening in various branches of government regarding the surveillance program. Note this link https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline and everything that was going on between December 2005 when the NY Times revealed the NSA programs in existence at that time to June 2013 when Snowden leaked his documents, and also note the portions between January 2009 to June 2013 when President Obama took office. To say that nothing was going on without Snowden to discuss privacy issues and other Constitutional issues with regards to NSA Surveillance is simply not true by any stretch of the imagination.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the President was already saying we need a national discussion because the Surveillance program might be over the top (he didnt get the chance to lead that discussion, and the discussion we have had has not been level-headed because of what Snowden did), congress was already having hearings about it, the courts were hearing cases about it, it's highly likely that classified information was put into the hands of the Chinese and Russians, and we still have no definitive idea of exactly what it is the NSA is or is not doing.

[sendero]

84. So the president was talking..

... the only thing he does really well, but don't be lulled into thinking he MEANS much of it, because he does not. And you are #1.

[stevenleser]

93. You can try to downplay it, but it destroys a major theme used to justify Snowden.

That Snowden was needed to "start the conversation"

[uponit7771]

97. If that's the best retort to the facts presented then (wether or not Obama "meant" what he said...

....about the survalience community) this is a thin retort to the facts presented.

This is why I'm leaning against Snowden and more towards collusion with Russia; There aren't many factual statements that establish Snowdens reasoning for doing what he did and going about it the way he did

[uponit7771]

96. FACTS SUCK!!!! / sarcarsm <-----cause this is needed around here

[stevenleser]

98. Yeah, I know, I'm a major Debbie Downer to the Snowden worship crowd because I focus on facts

In my opinion, 90% of the Snowden issue is an appeal to emotion (OMG, the big bad government is reading my SMS messages!) and the other 10% is based on faulty facts.

[L0oniX]

126. Hmmm decisions decisions ...worship Snowden or worship the NSA. Did you make your choice yet?

[L0oniX]

106. Typical BOG host response. Adding to ignore list with all the other BOG hosts.

[questionseverything]

130. so you are saying the pres was "hinting" at the illegal activity

the nsa had been involved in for the entire time O had been in office?

and that should make us feel better?

[randome]

136. Obtaining copies of third-party business records is not illegal.

Neither is spying on other countries. What else you got?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

145. There is no need to paraphrase, POTUS words speak for themselves. And your last sentence misses the

point completely.

Here are the bolded portion of the President's words from my above post;

But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance that we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy.
.
.
.
With a decade of experience now to draw from, this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions -- about the nature of today’s threats and how we should confront them.
.
.
.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. But what we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger to us, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all the while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. And to define that strategy, we have to make decisions based not on fear, but on hard-earned wisdom. That begins with understanding the current threat that we face.

---------------------------------
The President said as much that there are questions about whether NSA Surveillance conflicts with our privacy values and says this is the moment to ask ourselves hard questions and define the nature and scope of the struggle.

Your last sentence asks if this is supposed to make us feel better. That isn't the point. The point is, one of the justifications for Snowden's actions, the main justification in fact, is that we supposedly had no idea that NSA Surveillance was going on to the point that it might conflict with our values of privacy. When the President says so two weeks before hand in a public press conference, that justification for Snowden does not work because it is obviously not true. Absent that justification, what Snowden did becomes simple illegal acts.

[ljm2002]

137. Problem is...

...your problem statements / responses don't stand up to scrutiny.

Problem #1 - The President was already publicly talking about a need to have a national discussion about whether the Surveillance program infringed too much on privacy.

So? All of his sweeping rhetoric did not mention anything specific at all. And the discussion certainly wasn't getting any traction with the public. Also, there is NO WAY he would have brought the scope of the data gathering to our attention. You know that as well as I do. After all, the Utah facility was still being built, without any scaling back planned by this administration.

Problem #2 - We have no idea if the documents Snowden took were authentic or reflect actual programs in existence.

Utter nonsense. Please provide a link to any NSA official or government official who has denied the authenticity of the documents revealed so far. Whereas in the meantime, we've had NSA officials crying that he "stole the crown jewels", talking about fixing their (obviously inept) internal controls, and being pissed off that he revealed what he did.

Problem #3 - Unlike someone like Daniel Ellsberg, he fled rather than face the challenges of what he did.

Of course, you manage to neglect the fact that Daniel Ellsberg himself says Snowden did the right thing by fleeing -- that the obstacles Ellsberg faced back in the day, pale compared to what whistle blowers can expect today. And as to fleeing to two of our adversaries -- I can't speak to his first stop, but the Russia thing has been gone over again and again. You either believe he was forced to stay there or you don't. I'll not try and convince you here.

Problem #4 - His ridiculous hyperbolic statements lend more to the conclusion that this guy is a sophomoric fool who has no idea what was really going on and is a publicity hound with delusions of grandeur.

The problem is, we don't really know whether he is being hyperbolic. You seem to think his statement that a person's purchases could be seen at his desk, rolling across his screen in real time, is hyperbolic. I am not sure at all. Of course it is easy to twist what he said and try to claim that everyone's purchases are rolling across NSA screens all the time -- but I don't believe that is what he is claiming.

Problem #5 - Related to Problem #1, As EFF points out, much was already happening in various branches of government regarding the surveillance program. Note this link https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline (etc.)

Unfortunately for you, much that is revealed at the link you provide shows how arrogant the NSA continued, and continues to be. For example, this gem from Jan 9, 2006:

All But Two Judges on Secret Surveillance Court Finally Told of Spying

Leaked NSA Inspector General Report, Pg 37

The leaked NSA Inspector General report detailing the history of the domestic spying program reveals that it was not until after the the New York Times revealed the warrantless wiretapping program did General Alexander, Director of NSA, feel compelled to brief the all members of the secret court that is supposed to oversee foreign surveillance, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

There is so much more at the link, you should actually choose a couple of supporting arguments. Otherwise, people like me are likely to go over there and get even more mad about domestic spying.

Anyway, you contend that the President wanted, really wanted to have this conversation. If so, all I can say is, he was pretty ineffective on that front. There was NO national conversation on this until Snowden's revelations. Now it may be that the much-derided "public" just didn't care, until there was a dramatic event to bring it to the forefront. But so what? The fact is, now we are having that conversation -- and most of us are not accepting the warm, fuzzy handwaves we have accepted in the past from our public officials on this topic. Too. Damned. Bad.

[stevenleser]

146. Your attempts to explain away what I wrote don't even come close.

#1 - The 'so' is, the main justification named for Snowden's actions is that people supposedly had no idea that NSA Surveillance was going on that might conflict with our values of privacy. Absent that justification, Snowden's actions are unjustified illegal acts.
When the President mentions it in a public press conference, you can no longer claim that people had no idea it was going on.

#2 - Your #2 is not proof of anything. We have no verification, not even close to verification that Snowden's documents are authentic or reflect actual programs in operation. Saying "No NSA Staff have said otherwise" is not proof of the documents veracity. NSA and CIA folks rarely say anything public. That is not unusual.

#3 - The fact that Daniel Ellsberg once blew the whistle on something does not make him an expert on whistleblowing or whether it is justified to do so.

#4 - I stand on my previous statement. It's crazy hyperbole.

#5 - Nothing you wrote in #5 contradicts my contentions.

[JoePhilly]

76. What about the info not connected to Domestic Surveillance?

Why leak that?

[sendero]

81. I've been filling my ignore list..

... with folks who don't get that no one gives a shit that Snowden "left his girlfriend".

The straws these folks grasp at in an attempt to make the story Snowden rather than the NSA are pathetic and only a fool would fall for any of them. Anyone that does can't add anything intelligent to any discussion, so I don't want to see them again.

I'm sure I will get to add a few more ignores on this thread, so thanks for that.

[L0oniX]

107. Just look to see if they are a BOG host.

[randome]

109. So you're damning anyone for supporting the President. Huh.

'Reasonable minds' and all that, I guess.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

[L0oniX]

110. Let's see ..uhm I voted for Obama twice ...so I am damning myself? FAIL!

[bobduca]

108. Perfect analysis

There are two choices, the snowden bashers have fallen for their own bullshit or they are maliciously and knowingly peddling lies and distractions. It's clear that the most vocal snowden bashers here are not stupid, so that leaves malicious.

[L0oniX]

111. Add ...paid trolls?

[bobduca]

115. I consider them to be malicious

Anyone who knowingly uses fallacies to muddle the argument is a malicious troll in my book.

[Blue_Tires]

85. All I've ever tried to do this entire time

is try to reconcile the things Snowden said which either make no logical sense whatsoever, or completely contradict an earlier statement...And I've gotten a surprising amount of resistance here for doing so...

People can't have it both ways -- Nobody was saying "It's not about Snowden," and "Let's not get distracted with the leaker" when he was getting the rockstar treatment, collecting Man of the Year awards and making the cover of Vanity Fair (next to Scarlett's magical cleavage)...

I've tried starting dozens of NSA/metadata-related threads which had no mention of Snowden/Greenwald, and they all fell off the table with no replies...So it's clear what DU wants to focus the discussion on...

[UTUSN]

86. Far from being missed the not-about-him meme has been made as much as the "authoritarian"

name-calling.

[sofa king]

88. You're all fucking wrong.

I don't fully understand why the public cannot see that this was an intelligence operation--a Chinese intelligence operation--from the beginning. Some of the inconvenient facts most of you choose to avoid:

1) Snowden's revelations were made public only hours after the Secretary of State deeply offended the Chinese by discussing the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Mrs. Clinton started a row in September, 2012 by setting up a press conference at the edge of the square itself:

https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/chinese-party-media-get-into-a-row-over-clintons-visit/

http://world.time.com/2012/09/05/hillary-clinton-visits-beijing-but-chinas-likely-next-leader-is-a-no-show/

It caused two state newspapers to get in a fight and forced the leader-apparent of China to duck out.

Less than three months later, Snowden first contacted Greenwald.

Then, in June, 2013, Clinton really pissed off the Chinese by commemorating the anniversary yet again after the Chinese had told her not to do it again in 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/27/world/clinton-in-china-the-overview-tiananmen-comment-leads-to-clinton-jiang-debate.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/04/tiananmen-clinton-china-meddling-1989

At virtually the same moment that the rhetoric escalated, Greenwald began publishing Snowden's disclosures.

"When he emerged and when he absconded with all that material, I was puzzled because we have all these protections for whistle-blowers. If he were concerned and wanted to be part of the American debate, he could have been," she said. "But it struck me as—I just have to be honest with you—as sort of odd that he would flee to China, because Hong Kong is controlled by China, and that he would then go to Russia—two countries with which we have very difficult cyberrelationships, to put it mildly." Hillary Clinton, April 23, 2014

2) Most if not all of Snowden's disclosures were previously revealed by Glenn Greenwald years previously.

Really, this comes as no surprise to DU readers, who were familiar with virtually everything that Snowden reputedly "disclosed" for the first time.

I'm not going to belabor the point by going back through nine years of posts about Greenwald's own work here at DU. Go look it up if you must.

There is a simple operational reason for this, from an intelligence point of view. Anything useful to the Chinese and the Russians was not disclosed publicly; anything that was already out there was happily repeated.

3) Any claim that China was not involved in the protection and movement of Mr. Snowden after his disclosures is totally false:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/hillary-clinton-china-edward-snowden_n_3494482.html

The Chinese appear to have brokered the first in-person contacts between Snowden and Greenwald, then protected Snowden, refused to extradite him to the US, and let him go after months of debriefing.

I'm pointing all of this out because I have seen this sort of psyops being played out on the American people dozens of times. The Man is encouraging lots and lots of you to go out on a limb for these fellows, Snowden and Greenwald. Then, when the time is right, they're going to pull away the curtains and smear most of you with the commie patsy brush.

You can say what you want to me now, but I'll come right back with this thread in the summer of 2016 and remind you that the mass discrediting of liberal journalists was part of the "make lemonade" damage control efforts of US counterintelligence, after the Chinese spanked the shit out of us with this embarrassing event.

And you watch: John Kerrry ain't gonna say jack shit about Tiananmen Square on this year's anniversary.

You may now hate me.

[stevenleser]

94. Hmmm. Interesting but not definitive/conclusive. Still, cannot be dismissed either.

I will keep an eye out for this. Interesting. Good work whether it turns out to be correct or not.

[msanthrope]

112. Very, very interesting. Would you make this a more fleshed-out OP?

I think it's a converaation worth having....a year past, let's go back to the beginning.

[sofa king]

114. Oh, man, I don't know....

msanthrope, I appreciate your interest but I don't know if I have the chops or the time to go back and run through the whole thing. Just fleshing out the rudimentary chronology above took me an hour and I suspect it may be partly in error.

Furthermore, even though I was in a combative mood when I floated that comment, I know I don't have time to deal with people from all sides who are paid to come shit all over such conversations so that no useful information can be gleaned from them.

It's also important to note that this is just my researcher's spider-sense tingling. The beneficiaries of this event have been China and Russia, not the United States and not those of us who crusade for the restoration of our rights. That's the main reason why I believe the issue is merely a Chinese banderilla in the shoulder of the American bull. But it is definitely a belief, not something I actually know.

[msanthrope]

117. OP posting is a full contact sport. I get it!!! nt

[sofa king]

120. I can't dish it out OR take it.

So I have to stick to the drive-by!

[bobduca]

116. It certainly achieves your apparent goals here: Distraction.

[msanthrope]

118. Oh....there you are!! Doing well?? nt

[bobduca]

119. "Hey look a squirrel!" Homer Simpson

thanks for kicking the thread!

[woo me with science]

127. bobduca observes and sees clearly.

[Maedhros]

128. Nah, just ignore you [n/t]

[Number23]

142. I'm not sure if I believe a single word of your post

But I have to say I find your hypothesis abundantly more believable than the idea that a Ron Paul supporting Libertarian "systems administrator" that believed that whistleblowers were traitors released this out of "concern" for his country.

I have never felt that Vlad Putin's open reference to Snowden as a spy was a misspeak or something lost in translation.


Anything useful to the Chinese and the Russians was not disclosed publicly; anything that was already out there was happily repeated.

Very interesting.

[woo me with science]

90. K&R. Marvelous OP and responses from you throughout this thread.

I agree with the poster who said you should talk more.

[uponit7771]

95. Drake deads this thread and many pro Snowden threads. He did the same as Snowden with the

... differences of not spreading US secrets to enemys and got charged with a misdemeanor.

The Pro Snowden threads factually are looking like FUD

[randome]

99. And most of Drake's prosecution came from Bush. It was Obama who dropped the charges.

[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]

[nilesobek]

143. Well yeah huh?

The high levels of intensity in the arguments exhibited against Snowden seem out of proportion. Its like I wonder if they are cool to hang out with even, have a beer or a bowl with. Very uptight.

[snot]

144. I approve this message.