Al Gore: Edward Snowden's 'Important Service'
Source: Politico
By SARAH SMITH | 6/10/14 12:51 PM EDT
Former Vice President Al Gore said that while NSA leaker Edward Snowden broke the law, his transgressions revealed far worse violations of the U.S. constitution than any he committed.
He clearly violated the law, Gore said Tuesday at Tennessees Southland Technology + Southern Culture Conference when asked whether Snowden was a traitor or a hero. But what he revealed in the course of violating important laws included violations of the United States Constitution that were way more serious than the crimes that he committed, and so in the course of violating important laws, he also provided an important service.
Gore, whose comments were reported by the tech site PandoDaily that was a co-sponsor of the conference, said he would push [Snowden] more away from the traitor side. His views sharply differ from those of Secretary of State John Kerry, who called Snowden a coward and a traitor in late May in an interview with MSNBC.
The former vice president didnt hold back about his feelings on the National Security Agencys surveillance practices. This is a threat to democracy, to the heart of democracy, Gore said, fearing that people would self-censor under the threat of surveillance.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/al-gore-edward-snowden-important-service-107652.html?hp=r2
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Along with any other actual progressive...
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)That NSA spies on politicians to find blackmailable embarrassments that can help them gain leverage on them to support themselves, the corporate agenda or the war machine which are really all the same thing.
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)Way before Greenwald/Snowden decided to pin it to Obama.
Here's highlites of the best speech Gore ever gave.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)So where are all the apologist, excusers who always post on this issue while demanding we know and accept what liberal democrats they are? Me thinks they doth protest too much. I guess it looks bad contradicting Gore.
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)Thanks for posting it, stlsaxman.
24601
(3,959 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I was responding generically. But I'm sure he realizes what these subvertors are capable of.
24601
(3,959 posts)should have been on a first name basis with the collectors and analysts. Add to that, he was a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence which submits the classified Intelligence Community Authorization Bills. Then in the Senate, he was a member of the Armed Services Committee. Members have access to all Department of Defense Special Access Programs (except waived programs which are known to the Chairman & Ranking Member & Staff Directors of the Senate & House Armed Services Committees, and the Defense Subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees).
Al hit the trifecta and was an insider for everything except Clinton's personal lawyers handing Lewinsky.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Its also common sense that what is happening to our freedom has roots in evil. I hope Al speaks out more.
24601
(3,959 posts)surprising.
Given his technical acumen, I'd be amazed if he wasn't deeply involved in transforming NSA in the 90s.
I think he understood that messing with the Darklord Bush Sr would put him or his family at risk. When allied groups were ready to protest in the streets he told them to stand down. He understood that human life meant nothing to the Bushes as history proved. He didn't want to get JFK'd or JFK Jr'd for that matter.
24601
(3,959 posts)a paranoid.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Maybe a little hyperbolic but messing with the Bush family objectives carries serious penalties. Yes Gore didn't want to divide the country but deep down he knew it was already planned and decided to bring back another neoconning Bush administration. Wars had already been planned with trillions of dollars at stake.
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)the Clinton Administration that used 911 as an excuse to abuse the FISA Court and instill a Supreme Executive presidency...? In this speech he's talking about the administration to follow the one he was in. As VP he certainly was aware of the power of the Executive Office as well as the constraints.
24601
(3,959 posts)us doubled over laughing.
And I'm very, very sure the Clintons never, ever used the power of the state to handle his "bimbo eruptions" or to silence any of his "enemies".
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)was installed, 9/11, the Patriot Act, FISA and Homeland Security came to the fore.
Gore's primary job as Vice President was to further and support the Clinton Presidency, to which he did admirably, he was never a shadow President as in Cheney.
Perhaps you have a link or source supporting your speculation that Clinton used the NSA to handle his "bimbo eruptions" or silence his "enemies?"
stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)sod off, number guy.
olddad56
(5,732 posts)don't read something into it that isn't there.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If you don't jump on the "Snowden and Greenwald are vile" bandwagon here, "Libertarian" is one of the nicer names you get called.
Maedhros is simply trying to have a sense of humor about that.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It's just that it has loud and repetitious speakers.
merrily
(45,251 posts)One is, "DUers who support Snowden and/or Greenwald are only a small, but very vocal, not to mention obnoxious, minority of DU."
The other is, "Yes, DUers who support Snowden and/or Greenwald are a small majority of DU, but DU is not representative of Democrats in real life."
Those things, of course, contradict each other. But, that doesn't matter. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. So is wise consistency.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)That its the frightened Snowden-is-a-traitor crowd that are in the minority.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)So, it would have been hard to mean the opposite of my post.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)You have the Snowden supporters as being the minority, when in fact Meadhros was stating that it is the Snowden bashers who are in the minority, to which I merrily agree.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maedhros may have meant a larger majority, but that is not the opposite of a small majority.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)I read your post wrong. I thought you said "minority" in both scenerios.
But still, I must point out that it seems you also took Maedhros "minority" wrongly. It was not the Snowden supporters but the Snowden bashers with a minority on DU that "has loud and repetitious speakers" he was talking about in post #38. So your first scenerio is not applicable. But perhaps your second one is,...I don't know. But I think not. I think more Democratic voters are with Gore than are with Kerry on this topic.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...he is Old, White and Male...the three things that make up all racists.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)compared Gore to Bush, saying that they were Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Repeal of Glass Steagall, DOMA, NAFTA, DADT, bragging on having ended "welfare as we know it," "extraordinary" rendition.
And, it's always comforting to imagine that Imaginary President Gore would have been very different than real President Bush and maybe even real President Obama. But the reality of the matter is that we'll never know, no matter how "certain" some of us may imagine we are.
Maybe, since Gore never had the mixed blessing of the Oval Office, he was freer to advocate for the environment and to call Snowden a patriot than he would have been as President or even Past President. But, as I said, we'll never know.
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)than Bush the Least, all that takes is common sense and logic.
Gore's primary job as Vice-President was to support and advance the Clinton Presidency, and on that score he did an admirable job.
Gore was advocating for the environment long before he left public office, as a Congressman, Senator and Vice-President.
merrily
(45,251 posts)So, if you are certain about what Gore would have been like for 4 years, especially after 911, as President, yes, it is your imagination. It sure isn't fact.
I was pretty certain in 2008 about what Obama would be like as President too. Turned out that was my imagination, only I got a chance to know that, rather than imagine it, because he actually got into the Oval Office.
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barck_Obama
In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July, and his election to the Senate in November. He began his presidential campaign in 2007 and, after a close primary campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008, he won sufficient delegates in the Democratic Party primaries to receive the presidential nomination. He then defeated Republican nominee John McCain in the general election, and was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. Nine months after his election, Obama was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
Al Gore served eight years as a Congressman, eight years as a Senator and eight years as Vice-President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
While Al Gore has continued to evolve with the times, he was a much better known product.
I've followed Gore since his first term of office in 1976.
merrily
(45,251 posts)was a campaign. That is just about what Lincoln had before being elected President, if you substitute a term in the House for two years in the Senate.
Sorry, not buying that Obama could surprise me that much, but Gore couldn't surprise me at all.
There is fact and then there is imagination or crystal ball reading, which is about the same thing, passing for fact.
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)concerned specifically, Gore would've never instituted the program at the level of Bush or Obama for it was anathema to his core ideals of respecting the First Amendment as his substantial track record attests to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their "passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect."[32] On March 19, 1979 he became the first member of Congress to appear on C-SPAN.[49] During this time, Gore co-chaired the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future with Newt Gingrich.[50] In addition, he has been described as having been a "genuine nerd, with a geek reputation running back to his days as a futurist Atari Democrat in the House. Before computers were comprehensible, let alone sexy, the poker-faced Gore struggled to explain artificial intelligence and fiber-optic networks to sleepy colleagues."[32][51] Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn noted that,
"as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication."[52]
Gore introduced the Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986.[53] He also sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises."[52]
As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill" after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet).[54][55][56] The bill was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway."[57]
Gore knew the Internet would advance the American Peoples' freedom of speech powers like nothing before its time. Gore was for empowering the American People not surveilling them in-mass.
Gore's track record in championing both the Internet and environment, is exceptional, long and well documented.
merrily
(45,251 posts)would have researched it. Ditto his campaign. Neither, however, necessarily showed exactly what he'd be like as President.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)And to help Bush win. He even once acknowledged that he'd prefer to see Bush win because he thought we'd have to hit bottom before we changed directions, and that Bush would help us do that.
There is absolutely no reason to think that President Gore would have started a war in Iraq because bin Laden attacked the US. There is even good reason to think President Gore wouldn't have ignored the hair-on-fire warnings coming his way from the CIA, and might have been able to do something that would stop the attacks -- improve airline security.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And I very much disagree with you that the Gore Presidency could only have gone one way. But, I am not going to debate the ins and outs of the imaginary Gore Administration. It's too silly.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...of the Snowden Greenwald variety...
Newsjock
(11,733 posts)And I hear he might have written fan mail to Vladimir Putin, too.
Oh, and this is Old News. It happened more than an hour ago! Stop dwelling on the past.
1000words
(7,051 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Maybe because I felt I was taking my life in my hands the first time I had to look for something my mother in law's garage. Boxes would have implied some kind of organization and therefore been a huge improvement!
1000words
(7,051 posts)While it was likely noted as something random and inconsequential, it became a perfect caricature of the anti-Snowden mentality to find something--anything at all--to call his character into question.
Bodhi BloodWave
(2,346 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)said, "This is a threat to democracy, to the heart of democracy, Our founders warned us to be wary of tyrants that will want to take away our freedoms and liberties. The Constitution was written to guide us and yet there are those here claiming to be liberals that are more than willing to give up freedoms and liberties for a "promise" of security. Pretending that the NSA/CIA wouldnt do the unthinkable.
First they came for the leakers, but I had done nothing wrong so I didnt speak up.
Then they came for the whistle-blowers, but I had done nothing wrong so I didnt speak up.
Then they came for the journalists, but I had done nothing wrong so I didnt speak up.
Then they came for the protestors, but I had done nothing wrong so I didnt speak up.
And when they came for me and I had done nothing wrong, but no one spoke up.
An unregulated NSA/CIA security state will be the death of our Democracy. Dont try to distract us with ad hominem attacks on Snowden, Greenwald, or others willing to put their names on the line to awaken us to threats to our Democracy.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 10, 2014, 04:38 PM - Edit history (1)
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)The Framers had a choice between the two. However, like most politicians, they had no trust or faith in the "mob,"so we got a Republic. And the Senate, then elected by state legislatures, got more powers and longer terms than did the House, elected by everyone. They like to tell us we're a democracy, because it sounds so, doggone, well, democratic but, by definition, we have representatives, the hallmark of a republic.
As for counting votes, I don't know what you mean, but they just counted votes in Egypt. At least, I assume that's how they knew the general got over 96% of the vote.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)There's something to be said for that.
Chad refers to fragments sometimes created when holes are made in a paper, card or similar synthetic materials, such as computer punched tape or punched cards. "Chad" has been used both as a mass noun (as in "a pile of chad" and as a countable noun (pluralizing as in "many chads" .
In the 2000 United States presidential election, many Florida votes used Votomatic style punched card ballots where incompletely-punched holes resulted in partially punched chads: either a hanging chad, where one or more corners were still attached, or a dimpled chad or pregnant chad, where all corners were still attached, but an indentation appears to have been made. These votes were not counted by the tabulating machines.[1][2]
Chad is sometimes used as confetti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_%28paper%29#cite_note-1
BTW, the story of St. Chad is uncannily similar to the Presidential election of 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_of_Mercia In 2000, I couldn't even stand to read the story of the poor guy. At least, now, I can.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's one man, one vote. Senators are elected by the people, not by state legislatures. Remember. We amended the Constitution. We are a democracy. That's what we tell the world.
We could be more democratic. We could introduce apportionment of Senate seats. That would give me in California meaningful representation in the Senate. Two senators representing the huge population of California is not justice.
The history of the US is the history of a move toward more and more democracy. Like it or not that is the way it is. First only white men had the vote (in many states only property owners). Then we moved away from the property requirement. Then African-American men were insured the right to vote (at least theoretically and in the Constitution although not in reality in Southern states), then women, then 18-year-olds (used to be 21; I couldn't vote until I was 21 and therefore could not vote for JFK). We have moved toward more and more democracy. We have broadened the voting base. Hurrah for democracy.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Because of the electoral college.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We should have begun moving toward that after Bush stole the 2000 election. Gore had the popular majority.
The two extra votes cast by electors in small states that tend to be conservative make my vote here in California worth less.
Still, our system is representative democracy, one man, one vote. We need to change the Constitution to fulfill that promise.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The representatives can be appointed or they can be elected. It is valid to say that our representatives are chosen democratically. However, the manner of choosing representatives does not convert the form of government from a republic into a democracy.
And, I might add, it was long, long time before even how we chose our representatives in this replublic was democratic, even as an illusion. At first, about 5% of the continent's population could vote--and then only for the House and for electors. Over half the population could not vote until after World War I, not quite a full century ago. Now, we at least are can have an illusion of choosing them.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)And to the other point that we should recognize what democracy is, regardless of what was allowed in the Bush v Gore election by the Supremes.
Time has a way of making us think even harder the mistakes made, not only by the SCOTUS, but by the Senate to allow those crazy bastards passage to the Supreme Court. It led the way to even greater apathy, and finally, it's easier to become Snowden haters.
When are people going to understand the price of doing what's right versus breaking the law, versus being led around by our collective nose rings?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)When Roberts was nominated is complained to both about the nomination. One of them, I cant remember which, but one replied to me that the president (Bush) should get his nomination. I say bullshite to that. The system allows the Senate oversight and they should take that responsibility serious. Just sayin.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)Al Gore has served his country with great distinction. He has been a champion on so many core issues that are central to the real Democratic Party over the course of his lifetime. While I may not necessarily agree 100% with his opinion on this issue, I do respect his opinion & I applaud his courage to let his opinion be known.
Al Gore is a DEMOCRAT, & a damn good progressive one at that. He has fought his entire life to enhance the lives of millions of Americans, He has fought hard for the Democratic Party, & he has fought extremely hard for the issues he believes so deeply in, especially his work on combating & educating the world on the dangers of climate change, and I believe that if he wouldn't have raised the issue of man-made Global Warming, the entire world & especially a majority of Americans' would be far less knowledgeable about the issue.
So Agree or Disagree with Al Gore, Anyone who is posting on this site should RESPECT his opinion!
Let Become a More Civil DU, A DU where we can disagree without being disagreeable...Thats' what makes DU so great, and unfortunately we seem to have forgotten that while we may not agree on everything, at the end of the day we are all Democrats, and if your not a Democrat, you don't belong on this website, plain & simple...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to express their convictions and feelings.
We need to understand that we all become frustrated when we discuss things, when we argue (in the intellectual sense of the word).
That's what is so great about DU. That frustration we feel when we can't explain our ideas well enough to persuade someone else that we are right, that is the frustration of learning, of developing a clearer understanding of our own ideas. We learn so much from that frustration.
We have to just view the insults, etc. as growing pains, the growing pains of the intellect. It's good for us all.
Don't mean to scold. Just hope my remarks are helpful to you. My father was an award-winning debater. I learned to love argument. I know a lot of people who have difficulty with conflict of any kind and hate argument.
Loving argument in the way I do is actually good for a marriage. If what you love is not the argument itself and the exchange of ideas that takes place best through argument, but rather what you (general you, not you personally) love is winning. Winning is wonderful if you are in a courtroom or on a debating team. But the point of argument is gaining new insights, new understanding, not winning.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express myself on this point.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Nailed It. Anyone trying to persuade us to give up our freedoms is a rat in my opinion.
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)Thank you Edward Snowden.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)and has a secret crush on Rand Paul!
(Seriously) Nice going, Al.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)This is a threat to democracy, to the heart of democracy, Gore said,
*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.
*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.
*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.
You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Democracy. On second thought, it is fair to say that.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)I bet posters here are going to start denying global warming now
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)There is no answer to this one. So the m.o. for these kinds of events is to ignore it altogether. If the swarm doesn't intervene, there will be no arguments over their incredibly dense & silly talking points, and thus no 500-post thread that stays atop the forum for a week.
A week later, they will pretend it didn't happen, or else take some quote from 20 years ago or without context to show that Al Gore supports a strong defense and opposes terrorism, therefore agrees with the anti-Snowden party line, or Al Gore didn't really say what you crazy people think he said, etc. etc.
The ways of sophistry are manifold!
nxylas
(6,440 posts)Already a valid scientific argument against anthropogenic climate change, this will now become an equally valid defense of NSA spying.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)I also agree that it is important to find out exactly what NSA was doing. I simply disagree with the way he exposed the NSA surveillance. I still believe that he did much harm to US security and standing in the world. And there will be no way to know if NSA makes the changes we all want to see. Leaving the country and not facing up to consequences of his actions is not the way to this. I have little respect for him as a "whistleblower" or patriot.
merrily
(45,251 posts)He's a war veteran. He referred to himself as a "raging moderate" and he was a founding member of the DLC. He was Vice President under a New Democrat President for 8 years and he ran for President.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
With all due respect, if I have to take someone'opinion, I'd choose Gore's over that of a lot of posters here.
As it happens, I don't necessarily agree with him 100% on this, but it is not simply a matter of differing opinions, with both sides having the same basis (or same lack of basis), for forming an opinion.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
merrily
(45,251 posts)And I'm sure Clinton had nothing to do with the Gonzales thing.
BTW, you may have to remind me what Gore with respect to Gonzales that was so awful.
randome
(34,845 posts)He tried to play both sides in a very wishy-washy way. And eventually, of course, Gonzales went home. I thought it was a despicable play at politics.
That being said, I respect the hell out of Al Gore for nearly everything else he has done. I disagree with him about Snowden.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
merrily
(45,251 posts)a politician's trying to have it both ways on an issue where he did not absolutely have to take a stand. How unusual.
Who got hurt as a result of Gore's "wishy washiness" over Gonzales? If no one, that's not exactly like, say, trying to have it both ways on the gay marriage issue, is it?
I disagree with him some about Snowden, but neither your nor I are anywhere near as qualified as he is to assess this. So, again, it's not simply a matter of differing opinions.
randome
(34,845 posts)My opinion -and yours- are just as good as anyone's. Maybe even more valuable since they come from outside the bubble.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]
merrily
(45,251 posts)for 8 years.
Both those things seem highly relevant to being in a position to react to what Snowden did. Certainly more than simply pulling an opinion out of your air.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Did you read this article from NPR. Hardly an extreme left-wing news source.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/10/320347267/project-eavesdrop-an-experiment-at-monitoring-my-home-office?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
merrily
(45,251 posts)There is difference between "Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion" (duh. Try to stop someone from having a thought) and an expert opinion, which courts recognize as, not definitive, but a lot more valid than the run of the mill, pulled out of thin air opinion. I can have an opinion that someone is nuts, but that doesn't mean a court would allow me to testify to that unless I can demonstrate that my opinion is worth more than most people's in that regard. Hence, an experienced psychiatrist with a good academic background can voice an opinion in court on such matters.
Al Gore has actual experience in having his life possibly at the mercy of classified info and he also has had 8 years of being briefed on classified info. (I say "possibly" because he has said that he was not in any particular danger during the Vietnam War. Which federal politian's son was, though? Still, you never know what happens if the enemy gets their hands on classified info of the kind that actually merits classification.)
randome on the other other hand, seems to have a fair amount of experience in posting in support of the whatever position the Obama administration seems to be taking and hoping we'll take as well. So, we can't really equate randome's right to have an opinion with the weight that Al Gore's opinion in this matter should carry. Well, randome claims to be able to do that, but I can't and neither can most people who try to consider and think about things.
Thanks for the link, though.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's an interesting article on the experience of someone who arranged to have her internet wiretapped and placed under surveillance. See what you think.
The author and subject of the experiment is a reporter at NPR. The person who placed her computer under surveillance said he could have written the article she was researching himself because he knew all of her sources. Very interesting. I would be pleased if it opened your eyes a bit. I have done a lot of research in my life. I understand the danger in what the NSA is doing to Americans. It's really creepy.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)anyone else's. Just recognize that I, like many others, have a right to an opinion that may differ from the majority. And "same basis" is relative to the basis chosen. I just feel certain that most of the Snowden supporters would not feel the same had a contractor of Iraqi or Iranian or Indian descent divulged the same information by fleeing to another country. And we all would be questioning how one such person could have gotten such a sensitive position with the same background as Snowden.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Snowden had acted during Bush's Presidency.
But, Gore is far better qualified than either of us to assess this.
lark
(23,083 posts)I keep seeing that meme but have yet to hear any evidence at all of actual damages. We know the harm Cheney did with his outting of Valarie Plame, but zip about any solid harm caused by Snowden. Can you provide some real evidence and not just what the NSA types are saying?
merrily
(45,251 posts)of actual damage either. The universal assumption at DU seems to be that if that poster was not unaware of something, none of our allies or enemies were already aware of it either. Yet, we know that Ben Laden never used email or phones and it's fairly obvious that our allies in the WOT all knew as well.
lark
(23,083 posts)They are just use the unspecified "damages". I think the only damage is letting the cat out of the bag that we are breaking our own laws and for no good reason except to build up the security state and to be able to find/manufacture incriminating evidence on anyone they don't otherwise like - ala OWS.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The USG is never going to say, "Someone stole and disclosed classified info, but nothing bad resulted. The worst thing that happened was that Americans found out what we had been doing secretly and that embarrassed us. However, we revoked his passport and want to try him anyway, just on principle."
Never going to be said, even when it's true.
They can't say he's hurt us by allowing the world to see our dirty underpants, but that's the actual truth.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)at discovering that we tap the phones of their heads-of-state.
I, personally, don't view that as "damage" but "comeuppance."
merrily
(45,251 posts)I would be very surprised if our allies were not fully aware of our efforts in that regard. All part of being allies in the war on terrorism.
Angela Merkel got in trouble with her own people because she was doing to them what the NSA does to us--and maybe also to them. Because of that, she made a brief, half hearted noise about her personal cell being monitored-to show her people that she was in the same boat as they were. However, it was very half hearted, and brief, and only after she got flap from her own people.
At that, she only ever mentioned her personal cell. Not a word about her entire government's phones being monitored (web use, too). So, clearly, she knew about that all along. Given that, she would have been a fool to assume her personal cell was sacred. And Angela is nobody's fool. I would not even be surprised if she had cleared her half-hearted and soon dropped complaint about her personal cell with us before she went public with it.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)is the least ridiculous of the claims (because the others have been so effectively refuted).
The only harm is to the vicarious thrills that run up the spines of American Exceptionalists when we flex our hegemonic muscles.
Sort of like the Commander in the "Mr. Neutron is Missing" sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus:
Carpenter: Captain Carpenter here, sir. We've been on red alert now for three days, sir, and still no sign of Mr Neutron.
Commander: Have we bombed anywhere? Have we shown 'em we got teeth?
Carpenter: Oh yes, sir. We've bombed a lot of places flat, sir.
Commander: Good. Good. We don't want anyone to think we're chicken.
Carpenter: Oh no! They don't think that, sir. Everyone's really scared of us, sir.
Commander: Of us?
Carpenter: Yes, sir.
Commander: (pleased) Of our power?
Carpenter: Oh yes, sir! They're really scared when they see those big planes come over.
Commander: Wow! I bet they are. I bet they are. I bet they're really scared.
Carpenter: Oh they are, sir.
Commander: Do we have any figures on how scared they are?
Carpenter: No ... no figures, sir. But they sure were scared.
Commander: Ah! But it's not working?
Carpenter: No, sir.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BTW, Obama is an American Exceptionalist now, too, though I believe (but can't swear) that I heard him speak out against that in 2008. Ah, I really liked most things that 2008 Candidate guy said.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10864
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Too bad he was replaced with a reprogrammed Life Model Decoy by the time inauguration day rolled around.
merrily
(45,251 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Or by the time he sat in Rick Warren's church and opined that he believed in "contract rights" for gay people (duh?), but "when it comes to marriage, God is in the mix." Yeah, yeah, I know that, when he was running for 2012, his gay bundlers put pressure on him to evolve his thinking on that--right back to where it had been in 1994. But, it's not as though no one got hurt by his remarks during those four years. Or by the briefs his D of J filed, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and incest.
But, of course, that was when his D of J was acting totally independently of the President. So it's unfair to blame him. Not like when he told his D of J to stop fighting for DOMA in circuits where it had already been ruled unconstitutional and the D of J suddenly became obedient to the Executive, instead of independent of the Executive. So, of course, it was also fair to give him the credit then.
And he claimed only the other day that the D of J is entirely independent and he doesn't even try to influence it.
Sorry, I just can't keep up sometimes.
but, yeah. 2008. Good times.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)composed of equal parts marketing and wishful thinking.
Our votes are not earned by the candidates, they are harvested by campaign strategists and advertising firms.
merrily
(45,251 posts)marketing and wishful thinking, only their marketing strategy seems to include a large dose of wilfully offensive.
And we all know what they say about voting third party.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)When Republican crazies vote in candidates, the candidates deliver on the crazy.
Begs the question: when liberal/progressive Democrats vote in candidates, why do they not deliver on the liberal?
merrily
(45,251 posts)As long as you get elected and re-elected as "the lesser evil," and not much more is REALLY required of you, as when the rubber hits the road, why alienate the big money and not be able to look forward to campaign donations, lucrative speaking engagements, jobs for your nephews, a nice lobbyist or think tank job when you can no longer get re-elected, etc.?
And that is the problem with voting out of fear or resignation. You really do help make it worse in the long run.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Democrats know they don't have to deliver on campaign promises, because they know that the rank-and-file whips itself by shaming those who dare suggest holding our elected representatives accountable. (e.g. "Do you want Ted Cruz to win?"
merrily
(45,251 posts)As to message boards, news stories tell us the government hires posters and also tells us that part of some government jobs include posting. And almost anything that is posted here, pro or con, is going to get some agreement. And yes, there are the unconditional loyalists, too, along with the meme repeaters.
Counterparts of that exist in the real world, too. And a lot of the real world is clueless. Hard to overestimate how much.
Example: I know a woman, a Democrat, who is very bright, or at least so her academic record tell me. She reads two newspapers every day, one of which is the NYT. In general, she fancies herself well-informed. She never heard of the DLC until I told her about it.
For those of us who post a lot on political boards, that example seems inconceivable, but it's real.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Who could have imagined that that POS would be too liberal for the right?
The Teabaggers are the creation of the Kochs, though. Supposedly thought up by them in the 1980s, according to Jean Mayer of the New Yorker. (Around the same time they were contributing to the then new DLC, funnily enough.) I don't think any of the billionaires on the left are inclined to fund anything to the left of the center right Democrats, though.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)"...harvested by campaign strategists and advertising firms" owned by the uber wealthy corporate megalomaniacs (who own and control the vast majority of this planet's resources, including human resources).
(AND, they love the bickering among ourselves fostered entirely in order to deflect our attention from them and their 'carefully considered rape of the world.')
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to have a program like the NSA's. I think that Angela Merkel and other European allies were shocked and dismayed that their lines were also being tapped. I can't blame them.
I don't read the personal correspondence of my friends or family unless it is directed to me.
merrily
(45,251 posts)charade. The others have been pretty quiet.
The don't have a tax base that a population of 350 million in one of the richest nations implies. Therefore, they don't have NSA type capacity for spying on their own citizens and the citizens of every other nation, as we do. Being our allies in the war against terror--and even Russia is--comes with a price tag. If they weren't told that, in nicer words, of course, I'd be surprised. But, if they weren't told, I am sure they got it anyway. Few nations are as naive as we are. Certainly not at the head of state level.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to reclaim our freedoms and liberties. This is huge. It's our democracy for Dog's sake. How Snowden behaved is chicken feed. Saying that he is responsible for harming our standing in the world is quite funny. It's like blaming the person that points out that the bank is being robbed, for the robbery. The good ole USofA did the damage, he merely pointed it out.
You either are happy with the revelations or not. I am guessing you are not, but would rather live in the comfort of not knowing. If you are happy that the curtain was drawn back to see if there are Constitutional violations, then what he did afterwards shouldnt be important. Other whistle-blowers acted in ways that you describe without getting much attention.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,169 posts)Snowden revealed a slice out of of river of diplomatic information...no military or top secret clearance, so not to worry there. Still, it did put the US (and other nation's leaders) in a bad light in a lot of cables. The main thing was it exposed the extent of unwarranted mass civilian eavesdropping, but it also revealed lies and shenanigans on the international level with diplomats everywhere.
As I said, it was a slice in time of a river, which continues to flow even now, out of the reach of Snowden. It was revealing and educational to have a small glimpse into the shadowy world that is usually kept locked away from the general public. There was no harm done relatively speaking. Our capitalist democracy goes on without a blip. Snowden allowing us to get this tiny glimpse into that secret world did not cause WW3 and never will. Besides the greater accomplishment of opening the dialogue on what is acceptable for privacy in a democracy, what else it did is temporarily embarrass a few heads of government, and put them on notice that the public is aware. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this IMO.
rosesaylavee
(12,126 posts)Thanks for posting!
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)considering anything on a spectrum..... he did something wrong, but what he exposed was far worse than the wrong he committed....makes people go apeshit.
Relativity is hard, apparently.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)from a racist who wants Rand Paul to win.
lark
(23,083 posts)Sorry if I guessed wrong, it's difficult for me to tell sometimes.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)It appears that you have now lost your marbles too.
merrily
(45,251 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
840high
(17,196 posts)pennylane100
(3,425 posts)His book and film "An Inconvenient Truth" was a great step forward for this country's environmental movement. I was very upset when he closed down "Current" (sp?). However I still value his opinions and find him more credible than many on the left, or middle.
merrily
(45,251 posts)than any DUer, having been in a position to get briefings daily every day for 8 years.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)will complete the circle of where this place began to where it is today, and will create a quantum singularity that will destroy the universe.
You know, or not.
JI7
(89,244 posts)between Bush and Gore.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Many people who said that in 2000 have since recanted, whether they are right so to do or not.
I wonder, though if those throwing him under the bus because of his recent statements about Snowden will ever recant.
JI7
(89,244 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)What the heck is your definition of throwing someone under the bus then?
Saying someone is not all that different from Bush (or from Republicans generally) is not the only way to throw someone under the bus.
JI7
(89,244 posts)it's not like people are posting mulitple threads attacking him and calling him piece of shit and posting threads defending it and the person who did it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)posted on this thread at all.
Multiple threads calling someone a piece of shit? Are you sure? I must miss all of those. I don't post or read here every single day. Still, it's hard to believe I miss all those
JI7
(89,244 posts)but as i say, still nothing like calling him a pos .
merrily
(45,251 posts)"it's not like people are posting mulitple threads attacking him and calling him piece of shit and posting threads defending it and the person who did it. "
Again, I somehow missed every one of those multiple threads calling anyone a piece of shit, so I have no clue what you are referring to.
JI7
(89,244 posts)but even the fact that one was made was bad enough.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Don't really know how many ways to say it.
Sorry you think that even one thread taking a position that the VP takes and Ellsberg takes is too much. Yet those posters who defend or praise Snowden--and I haven't been one of them--are the ones accused of wanting no disagreement. Some posts are so bizarre.
JI7
(89,244 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)The former vice president didnt hold back about his feelings on the National Security Agencys surveillance practices. This is a threat to democracy, to the heart of democracy, Gore said, fearing that people would self-censor under the threat of surveillance.
Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Hasn't he seen ProSense's links??
OP Beyond his Moscow airport limbo, indignities await Edward Snowden ProSense Yesterday General Discussion
OP Greenwald To Appear At Town Hall For N.J. Senate Candidate Rush Holt ProSense Yesterday General Discussion
OP When It Comes To Extraditions, Russia Often Cooperates ProSense Saturday General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald To Testify Before Congress ProSense Friday General Discussion
OP ERIC HOLDER TO RUSSIA: We Will Not Torture Or Seek The Death Penalty For Edward Snowden ProSense Friday General Discussion
OP Senate pushes sanctions on nations aiding Snowden ProSense Thursday General Discussion
OP Bolivia forgives European countries for air space incident ProSense Wednesday General Discussion
OP Updated: Fugitive Snowden to stay for now at Moscow airport: Russian lawyer ProSense Wednesday General Discussion
OP Attitudes Shift Against Snowden; Fewer than Half Say NSA is Unjustified ProSense Wednesday General Discussion
OP Senator Slams Domestic Spying: Secret Law Has No Place In America ProSense Tuesday General Discussion
OP Snowden plans to settle and work in Russia lawyer to RT ProSense Tuesday General Discussion
OP Leaker Snowden hopes to be able to leave airport by Wednesday: lawyer ProSense Jul 22 General Discussion
OP Pew poll: Many Venezuelans want better relations with the U.S. ProSense Jul 20 General Discussion
OP Biden calls Brazil's Rousseff over NSA spying tensions ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP U.S. court renews surveillance program exposed by Snowden ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Two U.S. senators suggest moving G20 from Russia over Snowden ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Kerry talked to Venezuela about Snowden: US ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Oath Keepers Heart Edward Snowden! ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Russia says knows of no plan for Snowden to seek citizenship ProSense Jul 19 General Discussion
OP Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks. ProSense Jul 18 General Discussion
OP Guardian Journalist to Write Book on Surveillance ProSense Jul 17 General Discussion
OP What did Jimmy Carter mean by this ProSense Jul 17 General Discussion
OP Sen. Tester Calls On Snowden To Return To America To Face The Music ProSense Jul 17 General Discussion
OP "PHOTO: Application for temporary asylum in Russia written by #NSA leaker Edward #Snowden" (WTF?) ProSense Jul 16 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden Declares Himself Torture-Proof ProSense Jul 16 General Discussion
OP Fugitive Edward Snowden applies for asylum in Russia ProSense Jul 16 General Discussion
OP Carl Bernstein: Greenwald 'out of line' (updated) ProSense Jul 15 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Snowden Docs Contain NSA 'Blueprint' ProSense Jul 14 General Discussion
OP N.S.A. Leaks Stir Plans in Russia to Control Net ProSense Jul 14 General Discussion
OP Greenwald tries to do damage control ProSense Jul 13 General Discussion
OP Snowden documents could be 'worst nightmare' for U.S.: journalist ProSense Jul 13 General Discussion
OP Russia 'has not received' Snowden asylum bid ProSense Jul 13 General Discussion
OP Carney responds to question about Snowden meeting with human rights groups. ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Obama Spoke With Putin On Snowden, Cooperation On Counter-Terrorism ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Snowden asylum 'unlikely' to stop me from publishing leaks ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP If Snowden's case as a whistleblower is so strong, why is he afraid to face the consequences? ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP How the Snowden Affair Became a Freak Show ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden caught in asylum catch-22 ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Updated: US ambassador to Russia disputes claim sent message to Snowden ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Russia says Snowden could stay if he stops harming US ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP "Big news is that #Snowden is applying for political asylum in Russia" (updated) ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Purported E-Mail From Snowden Asks for Meeting With Rights Groups ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP The ACLU's own text contradicts its case for Snowden's asylum bid. ProSense Jul 12 General Discussion
OP Brazil May Seek to Speak With Snowden as Spy Allegations Spread ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Which Other Countries Are In Bed With The NSA? ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Brazil lawmaker: US spying won't hurt relations ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Snowden: I never gave any information to Chinese or Russian governments ProSense Jul 10 General Discussion
OP Fugitive Snowden likely Venezuela bound, says U.S. journalist (Greenwald) ProSense Jul 9 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks: Snowden Has Not Formally Accepted Asylum Anywhere Yet ProSense Jul 9 General Discussion
OP North Korea uses Snowden in propaganda video ProSense Jul 9 General Discussion
OP Snowden Mentioned Direct Access In Interview With The Guardian ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Irony ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Here's what the Snowden videos did ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden "Satisfied" by Global Outrage over U.S. Surveillance Operations ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Snowden affair clouds U.S. attempts to press China to curb cyber theft ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Snowden Anticipated Being Accused Of Violating Espionage Act ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall: Kinda Curious What That Means (Ellsberg's claim) ProSense Jul 8 General Discussion
OP Der Spiegel: Do private companies help the NSA? Snowden: Yes. But it's hard to prove that. ProSense Jul 7 General Discussion
OP Snowden: Other nations use NSA surveillance info ProSense Jul 7 General Discussion
OP Snowden isn't a whistleblower because...the law. ProSense Jul 6 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden Confirmed WikiLeaks Statement Was Written By Him ProSense Jul 6 General Discussion
OP A big "FU" to the United States by other countries? ProSense Jul 6 General Discussion
OP More on Venezuela's offer (Is everyone sure this isn't rhetoric?) ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Will Venezuela follow through on Snowden offer? ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP White House: no comment on Venezuela's asylum offer to Snowden ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Icelandic Lawmaker Claims Snowden Expressed Gratitude For Citizenship Vote ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks: Snowden Has Requested Asylum From Six More Countries ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP Who started the rumor about Snowden being on President Morales' plane? ProSense Jul 5 General Discussion
OP South American leftist leaders rally to Bolivia's side in Snowden saga ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Snowdens asylum request rejected (Norway) ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP What Kind Of Coward Is Edward Snowden? ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Obama, Merkel agree to talks on U.S. spying ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Russia shows growing impatience over Snowden's airport stay ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP Updated: France, Italy reject Snowden asylum request ProSense Jul 4 General Discussion
OP The hyperbole is getting thick. ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Why Wont Anyone Take Edward Snowden? ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks Spokesman: U.S. Obviously Responsible For Outrageous Incident With Bolivian President ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Audio purportedly from inside the cockpit of Bolivian President Evo Moraless flight ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Wikileaks Spokesman Insists Snowden Statement Is Genuine ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP The Guardian: Snowden Is A Whistleblower, Not A Spy ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Why are countries still cooperating with the United States on Snowden? ProSense Jul 3 General Discussion
OP Why didn't Bolivia's President give Snowden a lift? ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP Bolivia: Presidential plane forced to land after false rumors of Snowden onboard ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP There Are 12 Million Stateless People Around The World, But Edward Snowden Isnt One Of Them ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP Updated: India, Brazil reject Snowdens asylum request; Snowden withdraws request to Russia ProSense Jul 2 General Discussion
OP Rafael Correa: we helped Snowden by mistake ProSense Jul 1 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall: "Snowdens pretty screwed." ProSense Jul 1 General Discussion
OP Report: Edward Snowden Breaks Silence (updated) ProSense Jul 1 General Discussion
OP Who should Edward Snowden be compared to? ProSense Jun 30 General Discussion
OP Assange stands by Edward Snowden as Ecuador's Correa reprimands consul ProSense Jun 30 General Discussion
OP With Julian Assange Taking the Spotlight, Edward Snowden's Future Looks Grim ProSense Jun 30 General Discussion
OP Ecuadoran President Correa Gives VP Biden An Earful ProSense Jun 29 General Discussion
OP Am I missing something about the latest revelations regarding the EU? ProSense Jun 29 General Discussion
OP Analysis: Snowden's options appear to narrow in bid to evade U.S. arrest ProSense Jun 28 General Discussion
OP Jimmy Carter on Snowden: "He's obviously violated the laws of America, for which he's responsible." ProSense Jun 28 General Discussion
OP Ecuador cools on Edward Snowden asylum as Assange frustration grows ProSense Jun 28 General Discussion
OP Ecuador has no plans to halt commerce ties over Snowden: Correa ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP Exclusive: Documents Illuminate Ecuadors Spying Practices ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP The Errors of Edward Snowden and His Global Hypocrisy Tour ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP Ecuador Says Snowden Asylum Document Unauthorized ProSense Jun 27 General Discussion
OP Ecuador denies giving Snowden a travel document: report ProSense Jun 26 General Discussion
OP Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon says his legal team wont represent NSA leaker Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 26 General Discussion
OP Russia spies may be chatting with "tasty morsel" Snowden ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Putin Says Dealing With Snowden Issue Like Shearing A Pig ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden never crossed border into Russia, says foreign minister ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Op-Ed In Chinese Communist Party Newspaper Blasts Washington Over Snowden, Hacking ProSense Jun 25 General Discussion
OP Hayes Challenges Greenwald: Snowden Undermines Defenders If He Goes To Nations That Hate Free Press ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: I Didnt Even Know Snowdens Name Until He Was In Hong Kong ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Snowden plans more leaks...will let foreign press decide if leaks endanger Americans ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Snowdens Attorney: He Never Anticipated This Would Be Such A Big Matter ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP The problem with defending Snowden. ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Snowden is one issue and NSA oversight is another. ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Julian Assange Wont Say When Wikileaks Began Working With Ed Snowden ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Report: Kremlin Says Russia Didnt Know Snowden Was Coming To Moscow ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Why Ecuador? ProSense Jun 24 General Discussion
OP Which word best describes Snowden ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP China Said to Have Made Call to Let Leaker Depart ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Maybe Hong Kong is simply relieved to be rid of Snowden ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Schumer: Putin Always Seems Eager To Put A Finger In the Eye Of The U.S. ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Sen. Paul To Snowden: Dont Cozy Up To Russian Government ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP Greenwald Thinks Snowdens Final Destination Is Still Up In The Air ProSense Jun 23 General Discussion
OP NYT: Snowden "staying in an apartment... controlled by the Hong Kong governments security branch" ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP The ACLU message isn't going to help Snowden. ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Snowden spy row grows as US is accused of hacking China ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Snowden is going to be prosecuted. ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Snowden Charges Show Obamas Vindictive Mentality... ProSense Jun 22 General Discussion
OP Is it OK to criticize Edward Snowden? ProSense Jun 21 General Discussion
OP NYT: Documents Detail N.S.A. Surveillance Rules ProSense Jun 20 General Discussion
OP Analysis: Why Edward Snowden isn't a whistle-blower, legally speaking ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP What if Snowden didn't have authorized access? ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Greenwald is accusing President Obama of making "false" claims, but hasn't backed up his claims ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Where is the additional information Snowden says he's going to release? ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Iceland received informal approach over Snowden seeking asylum ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Excerpt: Obama talks NSA in Charlie Rose interview. ProSense Jun 18 General Discussion
OP Pew poll: Public Split over Impact of NSA Leak, But Most Want Snowden Prosecuted ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP NSA veteran: "So he is transitioning from whistle-blower to a traitor." ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald Justifies Snowdens Fear He Will Be Killed: U.S. Targeted Americans In The Past ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP NYT editor's blog: Snowdens Questionable New Turn ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden Says More Info About "Direct Access" Is In the Works ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Snowden: Obama Should Call For Special Committee To Review NSA Programs ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Snowden: I Didnt Reveal Any Operations Against Legitimate Military Targets ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Snowden basically admits the "direct access" claim was bullshit. ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP "the biggest intelligence leak in NSA history is answering your questions " ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Fleeing the country to avoid prosecution makes Snowden a coward. ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden To Participate In Online Q&A Today ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden 'not a Chinese spy' - Beijing ProSense Jun 17 General Discussion
OP DNI denies NSA analysts can tap calls without a warrant ProSense Jun 16 General Discussion
OP Jerrold Nadler Does Not Think the NSA Can Listen to U.S. Phone Calls ProSense Jun 16 General Discussion
OP Schieffer Destroys Snowden: I Dont Remember Martin Luther King Jr. Or Rosa Parks Hiding In China ProSense Jun 16 General Discussion
OP Hong Kong rallies in the rain for Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 15 General Discussion
OP Snowdens Leaks on China Could Affect Its Role in His Fate ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP While working for spies, Snowden was secretly prolific online ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Kevin Drum: ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: Edward Snowden's worst fear has not been realised thankfully (cites polls) ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Snowden Is Using 'Specific' Evidence of the U.S. Hacking China to Stay Out of Jail ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Snowden Is Not Welcome In The U.K. ProSense Jun 14 General Discussion
OP Leaker's Ties to China Probed ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Guardian "walked back the 'direct access' claim made in Greenwalds original article" ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Report: Snowden Stored Documents On Thumb Drive ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Poll: Majority Says Snowden Did A Good Thing, But He Should Be Prosecuted ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Finding the right balance between security and liberty ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP NSA Director Says Leakers Wiretapping Ability Claims Are False ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Report: Feds Hunted For Snowden Before He Went Public ProSense Jun 13 General Discussion
OP Guardian issues statement in reply to Rep. Peter King ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald to Pete King: Bring it on ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall: Curious ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Greenwald: We Did Not Want To Just Go And Arbitrarily Disclose Things ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP ...Showed Hong Kong Newspaper Documents Revealing US Hacking Attacks On China (updated 2x) ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP Edward Snowden Reportedly Gives Interview To Chinese News Outlet ProSense Jun 12 General Discussion
OP NYT editorial: Surveillance: Snowden Doesnt Rise to Traitor ProSense Jun 11 General Discussion
OP Eugene Robinson: Edward Snowdens NSA leaks show we need a debate ProSense Jun 11 General Discussion
OP Bush broke the law. President Obama followed it. ProSense Jun 11 General Discussion
OP AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower' ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP A Very Real Issue (private contractors) ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP "Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest. ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP Glenn Greenwald: I Know Where Snowden Is Generally ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP Snowden Helped Guardian Reporter With Secure Communication System ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP Ron Paul: We Should Be Thankful For Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP The "biggest leak in US political history" ProSense Jun 10 General Discussion
OP DOJ: No Comment On Snowden ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion
OP What happens if you don't take the loyalty oath to Edward Snowden? ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion
OP Whats the Deal with Hong Kong? ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion
OP Josh Marshall on Edward Snowden ProSense Jun 9 General Discussion
That's only a month and a half of links from a year ago. It's 10 times longer now. Time to catch up Al!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I wonder how Al could have missed all that...
SaveOurDemocracy
(4,400 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Probably an HG Gary employee.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)party PR hack, with a touch of true believer. Odds are, not a persona management profile, but who knows? Turing test supposedly overcome the other day. (Bullshit on the latter.)
mike_c
(36,281 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Yeah the Snowden haters that usually show up in tandem to try and debunk NSA crimes might be scared of this one because you can't call Al Gore a libertarian Paul-ite or pretend to be a liberal. Everyone here but one person supports what Gore said. If someone were a sock puppet profile they sure would have tens of thousands of comments and infinitely prolific posts because in all probability many different people manage that profile. I'm not saying someone is an undercover fake but if they were...
blackspade
(10,056 posts)We wouldn't be nearly as fucked as we are now.
Thanks a fucking lot SCOTUS. Assholes.
For Gore:
merrily
(45,251 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)Again, thanks SCOTUS, you Constitutional fucktards.
valerief
(53,235 posts)that killed the two Las Vegas police officers and Wal-Mart gun brandisher.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Telescreens in your house, just to make sure.
Pre-crime!
If they said something violent, they might become violent, so BAG THEM BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING!!!
valerief
(53,235 posts)can't even get a clue from YouTube.
I'm not advocating 'Minority Report' arrests. But the NSA shouldn't claim to be protecting us from terrorists either.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't think all that snooping is even supposed to protect us from terrorism. I think it's supposed to help them get a verdict after the fact.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)is about money. First of all, spending the budgets.
That's where the "Islamist" threat is the most useful. A huge apparatus is built to spy on designated "Muslim radical" people and groups, here and abroad, and can be used every which other way.
Second, creating and spending all the related budgets: other agencies, local and state LEOs, fusion centers, jtfs, crisis plans for the Podunk dogcatching brigade in case PTSD veterans start setting off IEDs, insane preparations for civil insurgency (as if), school shooting exercises to give heart attacks to janitors and permanently traumatize the children, etc. etc.
Third, gathering intelligence with which to make other money. Enabling sales to other clients for the corporate contractors in the complex. Deals for the opportunists within the personal networks. Info for sale to privileged bidders. Engaging in blackmail, etc.
Making friends so that these non-entity military brass can turn into private sector "consultants" who make 10 times as much after a 20-year-stint.
Fourth, fucking with opposition movements and dissidents that might threaten the continuance of a system of self-service plunder.
Fifth, fucking with opposition and dissidents just because they're goddamn commies and traitors.
Fundamentally, it requires a lot of self-righteous patriotic bullshit about how they're the real defenders of the blah blah blah freedom and anyone in their way even well-meaning naive dissident peaceniks are a major threat because if the machine should stop running the barbarians will come in through the gates and America will fall, etc. etc. Same bullshit the national security and terror state been worshipping during the entire postwar period.
For best results they gotta live and believe in their bullshit, most of the time.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But avoiding an attack seems like almost the last thing at which the metadata collections eems directed. The very defense of it here is that nobody looks at the stuff. Cause, ya know, the government always tells us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And no US bureaucrat or administration abuses its power.
Of course, true as that may be in other cases that isn't true about metadata. Even the government has admitted that some have used it to check on their spouses, ex spouses and significant others. And, if they've admitted to that. what else has happened that they are not voluntarily disclosing? But, let's assume for a second that no one ever does look at most of it. Does that suggest the goal of it is preventing an attack, or obtaining a verdict after an attack? That is what I was responding to.
But, I very much agree with you that 911 was a boon to the PTB in ever so many different ways. And, follow the money. When you do, you find that it's almost always intended to benefit the right and/or hurt the left, just as the money was supposed to help Nixon cover up his connection to the Watergate break in.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But we have those tattle phones in our homes and in our pockets, much like that hugest of all blabbermouths, the internet. And your friendly cable company can access a lot of info about your viewing habits. They claim a right to intercept and inspect our snail mail. They have mikes that can hear us on the streets, right along with cameras. And they've long had mikes that hear from outside our homes to what is being said inside. Not to mention capacity for placing surveillance cameras and mikes.
Telescreens inside our homes? Pish tosh. Kid stuff.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)US spies search for a sarcasm detector. Really
So the American secret service is looking for a way to detect sarcasm on Twitter. Of course they are.
Keen to develop a way of automating its social media monitoring service, the spy agency has put out a tender to find a company able to develop a program allowing its computers to filter sarcastic threats from serious ones, as well as conducting sentiment analysis.
Ed Donovan, a spokesperson for the Secret Service, apparently claimed, without a trace of irony: The ability to detect sarcasm and false positives is just one of 16 or 18 things we are looking at.
Yeah, right. Not. There is nothing easier to spot with a bit of clever programming and some smart algorithms. Language experts may suggest they pick up on the idea entirely serious and po-faced after all put forward by the mischievous journalist Bernard Levin some years ago, when he suggested there should be a special typeface for these circumstances, named ironic, just so that people such as Americans could detect the presence of irony where no other indications are present.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/us-spies-search-for-a-sarcasm-detector-really-9496841.html
valerief
(53,235 posts)and shoot each other to death, and the 1% could finally get the country they want.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Wait. Is LOL a sarcastic code? Wait! Is a ROTFL smily a sarcastic code?!? Wait... what's a pumpkin much?
merrily
(45,251 posts)So, if they are looking for sarcasm, I'd best modify my style.
As far as, " LOL," I use it to mean many things. Sometimes, it means, "You're good. That was a hilarious post. I really enjoyed it."
Sometimes, it means, "That was a ludicrous post, but I am not in the mood to get into a pissing contest with you-and I know from past encounters that you'll keep going until you have the last word, even if it kills you and even if your arguments get more and more ridiculous as you go along."
Lots of things. As I use it, it can mean almost anything.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)A few internal sarcasm detectors were blown out unintentionally by me with that post.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)how ANYONE could miss it, Those few actually surprised me
WillyT
(72,631 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Democracy is among other things a state of mind, he said. And if people are given the feeling that they have to be careful what they say lest it be misinterpreted because somebodys keeping a record, that chills the First Amendment rights that are at the very core of what American democracy is all about. This is really dangerous.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/al-gore-edward-snowden-important-service-107652.html?hp=r2
If someone tapped your phone as the NSA does, what would they learn.
This NPR reporter let someone tap her phone.
Here is what she learned:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/10/320347267/project-eavesdrop-an-experiment-at-monitoring-my-home-office?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
Snowden saw the NSA's programs in operation. It amazes me that people don't understand wha enormous power the NSA has taken from us.
Each time the NSA obtains data on someone, it should get a warrant based on probable cause that provides the specificity required by the Fourth Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment has been hacked away at by the Supreme Court, but the fact it is it should protect our private property. My e-mail account, my medical records on-line, all the accounts for which I have personal passwords are my personal property. The government has no right to trespass on my personal property without a warrant. The Supreme Court decisions that are cited to justify this enormous attack on our human rights are just wrong.
The Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War in part to protect their homes and businesses and ships and other possessions from searches by the British that were conducted with general warrants of assistance called writs of assistance.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/10/320347267/project-eavesdrop-an-experiment-at-monitoring-my-home-office?sc=17&f=1001&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
Vice President Gore knows better than the NSA apologists what the score is on the NSA. He got the briefings. He knows what they are up to. I'm with him. I trust him on this issue.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I realy wish I could vote again for the person who really did win in 2000
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)stlsaxman
(9,236 posts)American Constitution Society about the "supreme executive"-
There once was a man named Al Gore
Who chose not to run in '04
It's still not too late
For a run in '08
But he probably won't- so we're fucked
Here's the highlite reel of this amazing speech
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)For someone so experienced her snobbery sure gets the best of her. Dead broke in 2000? Wow. This is our champion of the middle class? For all I find nauseating about her I really did think identifying with the middle class was her strongest point. Fail.
merrily
(45,251 posts)If you try to brainwash Democrats, this time, for years, who their nominee inevitably has to be, they just may make you eat your words, even in this brave, new era of political Kool Aid.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And Clinton has a hard time coming off as sincere and genuine. I forgot as I haven't seen her live in the past couple years as I have in print. After her vile treatment of Ray McGovern and the Wall St dreams of her and Jeb facing off I just am off put by a candidacy. Hopefully better candidates step up.
merrily
(45,251 posts)What I fear most, though, is a faux primary, put on by those who have learned in the past two years that Democratic voters are pretty unhappy about the attempt to anoint Hillary as the nominee.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I think he's too attached to Obama. I know it's two I've already rejected but we need a Gavin Newsome type person to emerge. How exciting would it be if Warren ran and picked Gavin as VP? Dream ticket. We deserve it. Forget what the haters say. It's OUR choice and bothe these two would run if they thought they could win and no one serious threatened them or their families.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I like him a lot though
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)That's weird. But he's not beholden to the surveillance state investments Pelosi is involved with.
merrily
(45,251 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)no thanks. As much as i would love to think I could vote for, I realize to vote is to vote against.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Just get that the only thing stopping you from fulfilling your supposed wish to vote for him is you.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)the fact he is not running. That is sad, because he would be an actual choice, as opposed to the war drums/aka 2008 elect Hillary campaign that never stopped.
merrily
(45,251 posts)don't have any choice. Learned helplessness.
You've given up on the Democratic Presidential primary of 2016 and that general election way too early.
ETA: Not to mention the longer term future of the US.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I fully intend to help make the primary a nasty barroom fight, the same sort that Hillary LOST in 2008, and will LOSE AGAIN.
merrily
(45,251 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)the sort of people who might run read stuff like that, and think "hell, why do I not run."
merrily
(45,251 posts)I think someone in the USG reads here, or DU would not have been visited by the Secret Service for info about a DUer. And Grayson and some other politicians or hopefuls post here, mostly looking for money and support, but I doubt any of them reads here. And, I very much doubt anyone makes the financial and energy and family commitment it requires based upon a post, especially one that subtle.
If you want a choice, start raising money and maybe even stop voting out of fear. Democrats who are confident that you will vote for them, even if you feel they do not provide enough of an alternative, have zero incentive to do anything but go further right.
If the base is going to vote for Democrats, no matter how far right they go, what is the incentive to go left? (e.g., Akin's Democratic opponent had campaigned on anti-choice, except in cases of incest and rape. He simply had not put his foot in his mouth by saying "real rape" or some such.), Maybe the only way you'll ever get a real choice is not to vote out of fear.
In 2000, I was where you are. A younger friend, one who had just turned 18 in time to campaign for Nader, wrote me, asking if I'd trade my vote in a very safe Blue state (Massachusetts) for his in Missouri. IOW, he asked me to vote for Nader in return for his promise to vote for Gore. And I refused even that.
Fourteen years later I'm over voting out of unconditional loyalty and also voting out of fear. Then again I had Romney for a Governor. Did I like him as much as multi millionaire, center right Democrat, Deval Patrick? No, but I didn't love Patrick a whole lot more, even though I voted for him and not Romney. After two New Democrat Presidents, I am not looking forward to a third. And the only way I know to prevent a fourth and a fifth who are even more to the right is not to vote for a third.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Because it is the unjust rules they are speaking out about. Snowden is a man of great principle and he has lost an awful lot, which is what happens with most whistleblowers. That said, his part is finished, so if you want to argue with me about the man, I won't, because he isn't the issue anymore (never was, actually. Even though many tried, so , so , so, very hard to make him the issue). If you want to argue with me about what he revealed, well, we all know what he revealed, so that isn't much of an argument, now is it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)break the law. In one state it's against the law to photograph a slaughterhouse's inhumane treatment of the animals. If you want to expose the inhumane treatment you must break the law.
Those among us that disparage whistle-blowers are DINO's.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)Democrats are hardly of one stripe. But I think every one who has been a whistleblower knows only too well, that they risk a lot and that if it works, it is no longer about them. In fact, I think most whistleblowers never see what they do as being "about them". OTOH, there are some who will try to stay in the limelight to stay out of prison. That's not as stupid as it sounds.
I was always just careful never to get fingered. It is somewhat interesting that having a child made me want to be a whistleblower a lot less. I want him to have safety, both now and later. Whistleblowing is usually later. Having a mom not in prison is the now.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tremendously. I have to admire the people older than 60 that risk prison to make a statement.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)But, Why are we confining this (by the words we choose) to what the NSA did or did not do? The NSA is simply part of the Executive Branch, which, in turn, is part of the federal government. So, the issue is not whether a specific agency has broken (and is breaking) any law, but whether the federal government has (and still is).
There is nothing you can do about the NSA, other than holding your elected representatives accountable for what all of the federal government, including the NSA, does.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I often post sarcastically myself.
MzNov
(18,531 posts)"Snowden clearly broke the law" OH REALLY???? as he was hired by the great intelligence/defense community who have consistently broken the "law" since Bush and his secret FISA court. I don't want to hear Snowden broke some sacred law that this government adheres to.
I'm half way through the book and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND to anyone, ESPECAILLY JOHN KERRY, you incompetent assclown.
You will be stunned, horrified, riveted, angry and depressed all together.
EVERYONE should read Greenwald's book. Even you right wing southern KKK types who may or may not be able to read. Get it on tape.
Thank you Al Gore. It's the least you possibly could have done. And thank you Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden.
MzNov
(18,531 posts)MzNov
(18,531 posts)"Snowden clearly broke the law" OH REALLY???? as he was hired by the great intelligence/defense community who have consistently broken the "law" since Bush and his secret FISA court. I don't want to hear Snowden broke some sacred law that this government adheres to.
I'm half way through the book and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND to anyone, ESPECAILLY JOHN KERRY, you incompetent assclown.
You will be stunned, horrified, riveted, angry and depressed all together.
EVERYONE should read Greenwald's book. Even you right wing southern KKK types who may or may not be able to read. Get it on tape.
Thank you Al Gore. It's the least you possibly could have done. And thank you Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden.