Skip to main content

View Diary: Edward Snowden is a Coward and Traitor (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which anarchists? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shotput8, Pluto, corvo, JesseCW

    What majority?

    And I don't understand why Snowden needs to be stopped.  In fact, I don't think he's releasing any more documents at this point, so what's the problem?  Let's look forward, not backward.  

    And I don't understand what actions he's performing that are forcing people on Daily Kos to use black ops against him.  I don't think he's forcing anything, and I certainly don't see why he should surrender to anybody.

    You're not really making an atom of sense here.

    •  I guess you disagree with me (0+ / 0-)

      (and our president, and the majority of Americans).

      •  Sometimes the majority is wrong. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

        by corvo on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 05:22:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The term used was (0+ / 0-)

          "not make an atom of sense". So the majority is not only wrong in their assessment, they in fact have absolutely no points in their favor, and are acting inexplicably illogical. I sometimes disagree with the majority as well, but I'd never say that they are making no sense whatsoever. Even the majority's belief in Jesus, as completely ridiculous as it is, makes sense that people would want to believe something like that. But believe that leakers of secret information, all of them, need to be held accountable has even less substance than that?

          •  I didn't say the majority didn't make an atom... (0+ / 0-)

            of sense.

            I said you didn't.

            Unless you claim that the majority has said that Snowden is "forcing" Kossacks to use black ops against him if he doesn't surrender.

            Your exact words:

            Hopefully he will surrender to the appropriate authorities, and not force us to resort to black ops.
            In which case, I would argue that you are simply inaccurate.  In fact I would like to see a single reputable source saying that Snowden is forcing Kossacks to use black ops against him if he doesn't surrender.

            I don't believe a majority thinks that Snowden "needs to be stopped".  So I don't disagree with the majority, or with the President.  (Well I disagree with him if he thinks it's necessary for national security to keep everybody's telephone metadata, but let's confine this to the assertions that doc2 made.)

            There's no urgency.  And there's plenty of ambiguity in whether he violated any law.  And there was plenty of justification.  As I pointed out when I posted previously about how many laws have exceptions to cover exigent situations.

            So I don't disagree with the majority.  Only with you.  I noticed you didn't respond to any of my questions about why you think it's urgent that he be stopped.  What's the danger if he's not stopped?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site