General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I'm getting really sick of the whole "Comrade Eddie" BS from some [View all]Aerows
(39,961 posts)no matter what administration he revealed these violations against the Constitution, I offer you this.
You are correct. It would just depend on what party would be calling him "traitor." That, of course, depends under which administration he revealed the violations of the Constitution. You know it, I know it, everyone with two brain cells to rub together know it.
DU2 prior to January 20, 2009 was especially concerned about the surveillance state (I refuse to call it the security state because it offers no security and certainly fails to protect us against domestic terrorists and mass murderers). The archives are there for all to see.
Massive, invasive state surveillance has *NEVER* in the course of history *EVER* benefited the constituents and citizens of such a state of surveillance.
Explain it as an explosion of technological ability, rehash it as protection for the citizens, and you know what you get? The justifications made by every single government in history that did it. If you want to know where it leads, open a damn history book, and see how *they* were also threatened by a populace that knew more than they "should".
People scream technology like this is the first time humankind has ever made an advancement in communications. NO.
Again, open a history book. Go as far back as you like, then ask yourself "are these the same excuses, are these the same motives, and how did that turn out for the people?"
I dare you.