Skip to main content

View Diary: NSA Lawsuits Because Snowden, Whistleblower (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You'd have (0+ / 0-)

    a point, if that's what Snowden alleged when he leaked those IP addresses. It is not, as he did not "know what specific information they were looking for on these machines". Any other fabrication you wish to inject into this conversation?

    •  The leaks were about (14+ / 0-)

      mass surveillance. Try hard to find a reason to throw that out. But there it is. Nothing Snowden did compares.

      Security state zombies are everywhere. ☮ ♥ ☺
      Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue

      by Words In Action on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:56:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm talking about a specific leak, (0+ / 0-)

        not "the leaks".

        I get it, I really do: the particular leak I'm discussing (revealing specific IP addresses of computers in China and HK hacked by the NSA for no other reason than to get in the good graces of the Chinese) is indefensible, so you'd rather talk in generalities about Snowden's actions as a whole (i.e., he's done so much good this particular fuck-up can be overlooked). That's not the way things work, and the more you and your up-voters try to change the subject, the clearer it becomes to me that you cannot defend Snowden's action in this case.

      •  Grasping at ad hom straws is all they got now. (14+ / 0-)

        The enormity of the overall revelations, from many sources, including Snowden and now the NSA itself in Congressional testimony, completely overwhelms any bullshit efforts to impugn Snowden or Greenwald.

        This is just pure apologizing for the Constitutional depravities of this administration. Shameful that some people are still trying that McCarthyesque crap.  

        "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by Kombema on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:11:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It (0+ / 0-)

          would be wonderful if you figured out what an ad hom argument is before you accuse others of employing it. Thanks!

          •  Oh tell us, smart one. Please. (8+ / 0-)




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

            by DeadHead on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:25:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here's a hint, DeadHead: (0+ / 0-)

              Disagreeing with the tiny orthodoxy you are so desperate to defend is not an ad hominem attack. Pointing out mistakes Snowden has made (which neither you, the OP, nor anyone else has been able to justify) is not an ad hominem attack. Was that easy enough to understand?

              You are quite a little hero-worshiper, aren't you DeadHead?

              •  that "tiny" orthodoxy is a majority on this (10+ / 0-)

                site, in this country, and in the world according to the lastest polls.

                but using Orwellian language doesn't surprise me in the least. War is peace. tiny is giant. i get it.

                "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

                by poligirl on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:01:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The idea (0+ / 0-)

                  that Snowden is beyond reproach, that even when he appears to be in the wrong, his every action must be defended (and few are actually defending this leak to the Chinese, most just choose to ignore it), is a tiny orthodoxy on this site, in this country, and in the world.

                  •  Not beyond reproach, (7+ / 0-)

                    just not the issue.

                    •  What (0+ / 0-)

                      Snowden's done is not the issue? I'm not criticizing his personality, his libertarianisim, his girlfriend, or any of the other things that have been declared off the table. I am criticizing the fact that he chose to reveal detailed, previously unknown, classified information, the nature of which he did not understand, to curry favor with his HK and Chinese hosts. Is that too now off the table?  What exactly can be discussed when talking about Snowden?

                      •  what Snowden's blown the whistle on is the (3+ / 0-)

                        issue, as much as you would rather it be Snowden and his escapades.

                        "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

                        by poligirl on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:48:13 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I haven't talked about (0+ / 0-)

                          Snowden's character or his escapades, because I don't really care about them. I have criticized a particular leak. Apparently, since you can't respond to my criticism, your only response is to lie about me and my motives. Pathetic.

                          •  and the reasons behind the leak, hence behavior. (5+ / 0-)

                            what i see is you desperately wanting to avoid addressing the massive and constitutionally dubious dragnet that is going on and even getting bigger under Obama.

                            that's the main crux of the leaks. and Ed Snowden save for him being the one that leaked it, has nothing to do with those programs.

                            but yes, you want to concentrate on what he's done since the US put his head on the chopping block after he let the leak heard round the world loose.

                            "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it." ~George Orwell "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

                            by poligirl on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:59:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Ha ha ha (4+ / 0-)

                The "tiny orthodoxy."

                I like that.

                The dozens of recs on your comments, along with your avoidance of personal swipes directed at those with whom you're addressing clearly indicate you're in the majority.

                But of course, this isn't a popularity contest, right?

                This makes you sound desperate, by the way:

                You are quite a little hero-worshiper, aren't you DeadHead?




                Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                by DeadHead on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  You're employing ad hom to distract (4+ / 0-)

            from the central, substantive questions. Killing the messenger. It's textbook ad hominem.

            Argument to the Person (Ad Hominem)
            An attack on the person proposing an argument rather than on the argument itself. In worst cases, rhetoric is dehumanizing, even exterminationist

            Examples:
            * Senator Jones was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, so his proposal to limit military spending has no merit.

            * You can't trust Jones' theory of electromagnetic particles because he's a communist.

            * Those dirty __s aren’t like us, and have no rights

            * Snowden is a traitor to his own country, so everything he says about PRISM and other NSA spying must be a lie, or at least mostly made up hyperbole.

            You get the picture. Cause you're doing it.

            "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by Kombema on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:48:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are a dishonest hack. (0+ / 0-)

              I've never said he is a traitor. I've never said his other revelations are lies, or mostly made up hyperbole. I've taken issue with one of his actions, and said he needs to be held accountable for it.

              •  Ad hom again. Tough habit to break, isn't it? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Words In Action, DeadHead, JesseCW

                Held accountable for "his actions" implies you don't approve. We get that. But by fixating on Snowden (and, I'll assume Greenwald), you are making it clear you think his revelations are espionage, as Obama does, and not whistle blowing exposure of government malfeasance and even crimes, which is what Snowden's done.

                If you're all for the NSA spy programs, as a minority of Americans (that would be me ironically using YOUR fallacy of popularity, FYI: falsely claiming that majorities give credence to the argument), then just say it. Snowden does not appear to have undermined any national security up to now, unless you consider exposing and embarrassing the Obama administration as "security."

                So in the meantime, most of us don't give a crap about Snowden's character, or what you think of him, and remain appalled and angered by what he AND OTHERS, including the NSA in testimony yesterday, have admitted is a program far more extensive and insulting to the Constitution and the American people's trust than anything we'd previously imagined.

                "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by Kombema on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:37:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll say it again. (0+ / 0-)

                  You are a dishonest hack. I haven't "fixat[ed] on Snowden", or as you assume, Greewald. I have described one leak (not all his leaks as you claim) that I think was illegal and that I think Snowden should be held accountable for. No where have I stated I was "all for the NSA spy programs". No where have I criticized Snowden's character. You are lying about my comments.  You are a dishonest hack.

                  I encourage your friends to HR me. I would love to see what the Admins around here have to say about your bald-faced lies. That this diary's author Rec'd this dishonest bullshit is disgusting.

              •  TEXTBOOK ad hominem (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Words In Action, DeadHead, Kombema

                "You are a dishonest hack" - naked insult, NO supporting evidence.

                You also repeat ad nauseam ad infinitum the debunked slander/libel (it has shown up both in print and verbally) that "Snowden leaked to the Chinese [government - sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes implied]".

                No. Snowden talked to a Hong Kong newspaper and told everybody. Chinese autocrats, bureaucrats and literate peasants included - also anyone and everyone who reads that newspaper, and any other reporters who picked up the story, and anyone reading/listening to them, and so on and so forth.

                You may think that's wrong, and that's your prerogative. But you should be honest enough to say so.

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:41:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  This isn't at all like listening to a Republican (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Words In Action

            die-hard in 2006.

            Not a bit.

            Mr. Universe is a known degenerate Robotophile, and his sources include former Browncoat Traitors. What is their agenda in leaking top secret information about the Reavers and endangering us all?

            by JesseCW on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 04:20:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site