Skip to main content

I watch the constant heaping of praise and agreement for Edward Snowden's actions and am dumbfounded over and over.

I understand my last post really really angered Snowden's fanboys and expect this one will also generate substantial interest.

Go ahead and have at it...But here a few points of fact and recommendations to implement real surveillance reforms vice reflexive Obama bashing.  

I complain all the time about the right wingers who lurch from one supposed moral outrage to the next.  Yet the response to the Snowden story has convinced me that we on the left have elements that enjoy this same diet of outrage without facts.  

Edward Snowden is a criminal who broke the law.  In my opinion he is also a coward and traitor.  Yes a court will try and convict him but he will almost assuredly spend the remainder of his life in jail.

In some folk's imaginations he will wing his way to a South American country to drink Margarita's and thumb his nose at America.  

All without a passport..or transportation...Yeah..That's likely to happen.  

For those who live in a bubble and think that the US gathering intelligence is somehow a bad thing....

Every country spies on every other country... Regardless of whether those countries are friends or enemies.  If this is a new fact to you then you need to get out more.

The reason for all this spying is that each country wants to have as much information as possible on everyone else.  Many times this data is not used or acted upon but it helps countries understand each other and sometimes eliminate confusion.  

All countries do it and none of them desire to publicly talk about it.  However Snowden's public claims that the US surveils  the EU, the Chinese, Russia, and everyone anywhere has given those countries tool to use against America.   Yes 99.99% of this is simply embarrasment for the Obama administration.  It still aids and abeits our enemies.  

If you think that Russia and China have not downloaded every bit of the data on the 4 laptops Snowden stole then you are beyond naive.  

So I think a review of what Snowden and Greenwald's "Bombshells" is once again in order.

 1. Collection of Metadata.  Yes NSA collects data that is authorized under the patriot act section 215.   You think this is overreach?  You want to change it?  Great...so do I.... Lets support Senator Wyden and Leahy's efforts to hold hearings and change the law.  

 2. Snowden and Greenwald claimed that NSA had "Direct Access" to tech companies servers and could access your data without a warrant.  That is simply untrue...As Verizon stated the practice of establishing a FTP folder as a location for data provided as part of a court order is not "Direct Access" .  
I would have thought that a highly trained "System Administrator" would know that.....

3. Phone Data collected under a FISC court order using Stellar Wind and Prizm are legal under the patriot act.

You do not like it...You think the FISC Courts are a sham or "Shadow Judiciary"?  

Then Support lawmakers who want to change the current system...Help take the house back in 2014....

I would much prefer to hold hearings on FISC, NSA and the Patriot act than listen to idiotic Darrel Issa go on about "Benghazi"

So how about rather than calling for Snowden's pardon we throw the weight of the orange masses behind things that might actually result in change.

I know that takes time and does not feel as good as a righteous rant but that's life

One last note....Google, Amazon, Face Book and any company or merchant you have ever swiped your credit card with has way more information about you than the NSA....You do know this?  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Agreed. But why do you think he's a traitor? nt (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, fou, smiley7, incognita, Sandino
    •  Definition of TRAITOR (5+ / 0-)

      1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
      2: one who commits treason
      _______
      Definition of TREASON
      1: the betrayal of a trust : treachery
      2: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance.
      _
      ______
      Technically he's a traitor, no matter if you agree with his actions or not.
      And if he stands trial it will be on these grounds.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:07:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any politician, including the president, (11+ / 0-)

        could be a traitor by definition #1. Don't think we're talking about that. We're talking about treason.

        Do you think Snowden has engaged in overt acts to overthrow the government and has aided and abetted an enemy of the United States?

        •  Obviously. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueyedace2, zenox, yorkiedoglover

          His own statements show that he was trying to bring down what he considered to be a criminal regime. And to do that, he released state secrets not only to the press, but to China and probably also Russia, information that has caused turmoil in our relations with our allies, weakened our government and strengthened our detractors.
          And that was his plan, not an unintended consequence.
          I'm not making value judgement here, I'm looking purely at his actions, statements and their realworld effects.
          That doesn't mean that I support NSA spying, I don't. But currently, it's the state of play. Technically it's legal, it's pervasive and every country that has the technology to do it, does.
          Would I like to see that changed? H3LL YEAH. And I was banging this gong loud and hard in about 2004-5 with just about no resonance from the "progressives" at the site I used to haunt. And I said at the time, I don't care who is in the WhiteHouse, these tools should not be made available. And that it wouldn't matter which party was in charge, they would never give up power bequeathed to them by the previous admin without a lot of outside pressure (H/T Arthur Schlesinger who pointed this out in the context of RMNixon).
          Maybe this is enough pressure to fix this, I doubt it.
          But separate the man from the subject matter. His actions were illegal, a betrayal of his security clearance (Trust) and intended to damage the US as he saw it. That's a textbook definition of treason.
          And the fact that he ran rather than do an Elsburg takes away his right to the label "Whistleblower".

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:54:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whoa whoa whoa. (10+ / 0-)

            Far be it from me to come to the defense of Snowden, but this comment is filled with stretches and assertions not backed up by any facts:

            His own statements show that he was trying to bring down what he considered to be a criminal regime.
            Show me the link where he said or wrote this.
            And to do that, he released state secrets not only to the press, but to China and probably also Russia, information that has caused turmoil in our relations with our allies, weakened our government and strengthened our detractors.
            My god! You must have some independent links that back up the assertion that our relations our in turmoil and that he gave money to China and Russia (whom we are not at war with).
            His actions were illegal, a betrayal of his security clearance (Trust) and intended to damage the US as he saw it. That's a textbook definition of treason.
            That is absolutely crazy. Under your definition of treason Martin Luther King Jr. would have been a traitor (and he was certainly accused of it). Lawbreaking does not equal treason (shame I have to say that...sigh).

            Snowden is a criminal. He was legally obliged to keep secrets and he didn't. He should be prosecuted for that. But my god...TREASON? You're going overboard in your patriotic zeal...or something...because that's just crazy talk.

            •  If, as you say,"Snowden is a criminal" (0+ / 0-)

              what laws did he break?
              Laws about state secrets. Those laws are covered under Espionage and Treason.
              Again, I don't disagree with him that this surveillance is wrong, but his method of rectifying that wrong exposes him to harsh punishment and his subsequent actions have only compounded his problems.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:26:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You sound like a crazy person. (7+ / 0-)

                Look, treason is a crime. It is spelled out in federal law what you have to do to be guilty of it. Jesus...even people in this country who have passed secrets DIRECTLY to foreign nations the Soviet Union during the Cold War weren't charged with treason. Espionage certainly, but not treason.

                You know the last time we had a treason conviction? over 70 years ago by a US citizen who left America to go fight for Japan, the country of his ancestry. THAT is the kind of shit you have to do to be guilty of treason.

      •  Which puts you squarely in the minority. (25+ / 0-)
        Snowden Seen as Whistle-Blower by Majority in New Poll

        Fifty-five percent said Snowden was a whistle-blower in leaking details about top-secret U.S. programs that collect telephone and Internet data, in the survey from Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University. Thirty-four percent said he’s a traitor. Snowden, 30, worked for McLean, Virginia-based federal contractor Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp. (BAH)

        According to your sig line, you are ex-military.   My experience in working with Vets is that they are obedient.   I can understand why you would have a problem with anyone who challenges authority.     I believe it is my god given right and duty to challenge authority.

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren/Spitzer 2016

        by dkmich on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:31:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No offense... (5+ / 0-)

          But I'm sure folks like Tim McVeigh think it's their God given right to challenge authority as well. Many evil people have likely expressed such an opinion.

          Its not really up to the person challenging authority to decide whether he or she has that right. It's for society to decide.

          I'm not in anyway criticizing your passion, I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of such a statement.

          Money doesn't talk it swears.

          by Coss on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:49:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The mass murder of innocent (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            letsgetreal, milkbone, Sandino

            people is not a simple "challenge to authority." It's mass murder of innocent men, women and children. A capital crime in everybody's nation.

            A "challenge to authority" would be something like refusing to move to the back of the bus. Or taking up room at a 'whites only' lunch counter. Or publishing screeds against politicians and/or political policies. Or refusing to stand for the anthem or refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance. Picketing a nasty business. Going on strike against a very bad employer. Complaining about the bad Bible teachings at the local public elementary school, maybe even suing them. Things like that.

            All perfectly legal and fully enshrined RIGHTS of the citizens of this nation. "Society has nothing to say about it. The Constitution's enumerated rights belong to the people no matter what anybody else thinks about it.

        •  That's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JosephK74

          What makes you a democratic.  I used the small "D", because I am not referring to the party, but rather, the principle.

        •  You talking to me? Ex-Military? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueyedace2, CS in AZ, zenox, fou

          You couldn't be more wrong.
          My anti-military activism started in about 1965 in reaction to the VietNam war and I have been a very active participant in anti-war actions ever since. I attended Quaker schools and built a very strong CO case.
          I've lost count of the marches and demos that I've attended. there were at least a dozen during BushCheney and I stand vigil with a couple other anti-war folks every week in New London CT (Thursdays, 4:30-5:30 at the Monument, if you are in town at that time, come join us) and have, EVERY WEEK for over 10 YEARS now.
          So don't jump to conclusion about me, OK?

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:02:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He's not a whistleblower. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV, NedSparks, second gen

          He may be perceived as one, but he didn't expose anything that isn't already sanctioned under the Patriot Act.

          •  If he exposed nothing, he's guilty of nothing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            terrybuck

            You can't have it both ways. Either he exposed significant facts of which the public had been unaware, or everything he revealed was already public knowledge, so his actions, though technically illegal, could have had no effect, harmful or otherwise, on the nation or its security.

            The point is that the Patriot Act is broad and vague and murky enough that no one knows what is and is not sanctioned under it. No one except the handful of Roberts-appointed right wingers on the FISA court. We are living under secret laws, and Snowden made some of those secret laws public.

            I believe the primary point of the diarist (despite his confusion about what constitutes treason) is that we should be concentrating on making those secret laws fully public, so that the public can weigh in on them. In his view, that should be and can be done the legal way - by pressuring Congress to declassify, not necessarily every decision of the FISA court, but every new point of law they have secretly established.

    •  Diarist's previous post answers that question... (32+ / 0-)

      Starting with their headline...see LINK HERE.

      Posts at places such as Breitbart.com (see LINK for example) remind me of the opinions held by some in this community on this subject, these days.

      It's funny how some in this community constantly rant about how "the left" embrace Libertarian thought--and it IS true that the left does share its positions on one or two issues with those in the Libertarian frame of mind, but THAT'S IT--when the greater reality is that if what had occurred with Snowden/Greenwald had happened on Bush's watch, those same folks would be screaming holy murder right now.

      Support of the 1st and 4th Amendments has ALWAYS been a mainstay of traditional Democratic Party policy...but, perhaps hardcore, cognitive dissonance is getting in the way of that greater truth at the moment?

      The hypocrisy and contradictions of some centrist Democrats--the ones who are so quick to defame progressives--in this era, is truly surreal.

      Most Progressive Dems WILL acknowledge that they DO share the same sentiments as Libertarians on one or two issues (and, again, THAT'S IT), and they get never-ending sh*t for it, as we can witness that truth, even in this community. But, god forbid, one points out that some Democratic centrists are sounding more and more like hardcore McCarthyists and rightwing Tea Partiers these days, and their outcries and feigned indignation goes into overdrive!

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:11:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  If you are military, civil disobedience is treason (8+ / 0-)

           They are taught never to question and to blindly obey.    

          What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren/Spitzer 2016

          by dkmich on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:41:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Difference (0+ / 0-)

          i understand the difference perfectly between disobedience and treason.  

          Snowden violated the law when he disclosed classified  information.  

          He committed treason when he gave the Russians and Chinese access to the 4 laptops he stole.  

          •  Are we at war with Russia in China? (9+ / 0-)

            I don't have any information that what you say is true...you'll need to give me links. But even if it is, it isn't treason. See, we have to be at war with Russia and China for it to even get close to the definition of treason under the law.

            You know when was the last time we had a treason indictment in this country? WW2. We have to be at war for there to be treason. Even the many people sent to jail for giving secrets to Soviet Russia weren't charged with treason.

            You don't know what you're talking about.

            •  I considered it treason (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              brooklynbadboy

              when Dick Cheney blew the cover on an important in-theater counter-proliferation CIA operation and outed the NOC agent (who was HIRED and TRAINED to commit espionage by our government) who ran it, just to get back at a notable diplomat who wouldn't back his lies about yellowcake as an excuse to go to war with Iraq.

              But I also recognize that no court - even if any prosecutor cared to pursue the charge - would ever have convicted him because he was VEEP, and he could do whatever he liked. Hell, the Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage, not even full-blown espionage and certainly not treason...

              So yeah. This diarist doesn't know what he's talking about.

          •  What proof do you have that he (10+ / 0-)

            "gave the Russians and Chinese access to the 4 laptops"?

            There is not proof of that happening.  There is no proof that he willingly and freely did something like that either.

            Based on the reporting thus far, he gave the information to media outlets - not to specific foreign governments.

            When and if you ever have that proof, we can talk about monikers such as "traitor", but until then your point is moot with respect to this specific case.

            And not for nothing, I happen to believe that your opening paragraphs about countries spying on each other effectively disprove any notion that Snowden is even remotely useful to the Russians or the Chinese.  His short stint at BAH on NSA work - three short months - is nothing compared to the Chinese government's extensive hacking into US Government systems.  They don't need Snowden.  They've done far too well on their own.

          •  Where did you find your information? (0+ / 0-)

            Let's start with four laptops. The nearest thing I can find on that is "an assortment of laptop bags."

            I've not seen or heard Snowden say he gave anyone access to his computer(s). Who would have any way of knowing other than Snowden? I strongly suspect that's nothing but propaganda.

            Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

            by Just Bob on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:21:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Libertarian Dem (4+ / 0-)

        Libertarian Dem

        The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe.

        I am very much a Libertarian Dem

        --Kos

        I'm all in.

        Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

        by ROGNM on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:38:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The larger point (0+ / 0-)

        Is that it shouldn't matter whose watch we're on. There need to be consistent laws in place; otherwise this is all just political gamesmanship.

        Money doesn't talk it swears.

        by Coss on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:50:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the laws are VERY consistent right now (5+ / 0-)

          The current laws and FISA court consistently allow the NSA and other agencies to spy on citizens everywhere, every way, at any time they want.

          The politicians are very consistent too: no matter who is in office, who runs Congress, there will always be support for more spying on everyone, because terrorism (and sweet payola from the MIC/SIC).

          History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

          by quill on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:48:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            brasilaaron

            So calls for Obama to not use the tools afforded to the Executive Branch are kind of pointless. The laws need changed. We can't just ask each President to play nice.

            Money doesn't talk it swears.

            by Coss on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:52:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  in Soviet America, the tool handles you! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bobswern

              With the current occupiers of Congress (R and D), the laws will never be substantially changed - in fact any attempt to "fix" the problem will be weakened and perverted (see: Dodd/Frank). And so any president will always have those tools available and be "forced" to use them to the betterment of the Empire.

              The best hope for changing this is to expose as much as possible (thanks various whistleblowers, including Snowden) and change public mood to be strongly against the whole idea of massive surveillance and data retention. As a result of the Snowden leaks, that is starting to happen. Then we would need a few couragous leaders to buck the "machine" and kill the Patriot Act, transform the FISA court, and scale back or eliminate these spying programs. I don't see any such leaders outside of a few marginalized progressive pols like Alan Grayson. Even Eisenhower was safely on his way out when he warned us about the MIC.

              History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

              by quill on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:11:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nothing will happen (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                quill

                as long as the public votes against people who value freedom over security. The public has punished many Democrats for standing up and trying to fight the Patriot Act, FISA, etc.

                Frankly, I don't blame democrats for just going along with this. The alternative is more Scalias on the Court

                I had hoped the Snowden issue would bring Republicans around, if for no other reason than they hate Obama, but they aren't taking the bait.

                Money doesn't talk it swears.

                by Coss on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:20:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Right (0+ / 0-)

              All presidents use every tool afforded by law.  

              To ask any of them to do otherwise is ludicrous.

              We can work to change the laws or continue to express outrage the next time an issue suddenly explodes into the national consciousness.

              Easy Choice I think.

      •  really, it's a language comprehension problem (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, bobswern, milkbone

        You see, when someone says they're a CIVIL libertarian, centrists filter out the unimportant parts and just hear them say that they are a Libertarian and have a crush on Ayn Rand.

        For example, the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports Snowden and "has its hair on fire" about this silly NSA spying thing, is actually the American Libertarian Union and is apparently run by a bunch of Ron Paul devotees.

        History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx

        by quill on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:25:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A new Quinnipiac poll reveals this: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dclawyer06, lostinamerica, JosephK74

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:47:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually, he's (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou

        arguably both. But treason is a very specific crime, and espionage better describes what he did.

        If I were in that poll, I'd be in the remaining 11%.

        "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

        by JackND on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:07:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you think he is not a traitor? (0+ / 0-)

      "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

      by zenox on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:19:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because there is a federal law (9+ / 0-)

        that tells us what treason is and what you have to do to be guilty of it:

        18 USC 2381:

        Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
        So Snowden, in order to be a traitor, has to wage war against the U.S. or give aid and comfort to its enemies. Obviously he hasn't declared war on America to my knowledge. Nor has he given aid and comfort to anybody that we are at war with to my knowledge.

        My understanding is that he took state secrets and released them to the media. That too is a crime, but it isn't treason.

  •  OFA has a big database as well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, ballerina X

    And they didn't need phone call meta data to build it. There sure is a lot of data out there.

    > You do not like it...You think the FISC Courts are a sham or "Shadow Judiciary"? Then Support lawmakers who want to change the current system...Help take the house back in 2014....

    Exactly.

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:57:42 AM PDT

    •  What makes you think Democrats would change (15+ / 0-)

      the FISA court scenario? All the national Democrats have voiced support for the current system as constructed. Liberals and moderates alike.

      So whats the point of taking back the House on this particular issue?

      •  that sounds like democracy at work (0+ / 0-)

        funny eh?

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:09:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sounds more like bought and paid for to me. eom (5+ / 0-)
          Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.[9]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren/Spitzer 2016

          by dkmich on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  gotta start somewhere - or not(?) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        So besides blogging what do you have in mind? I guess we could wave puppets around during street demos. That worked during the Iraq run up.

        Somehow I don't think Snowdon leading the Ron Paul Revolution is going to sweep the national security state clean.

        But I do think FISA should be looked at (even though I'm nowhere near as bothered by metadata spidering as the general water level on this site). As the OP points out a Dem House might not spend all its time investigating Whitewater.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, but diarist says (8+ / 0-)

          that taking back the House is a solution for those who don't like the current FISA court. You nor diarist have named any Democrats in leadership who have made that a policy position.

          •  so what's your plan? blogging might work (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            Can you make the case that a Democrat controlled House would be worse? Can you make the case that the majority of the country is as incensed over this issue as this corner of the blogosphere is? If put to a popular vote what do you think would happen?

            Overton window etc ...

            If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

            by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:36:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  so tiresome (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              quill, incognita, JosephK74

              A) you didn't even remotely respond to bbb's reasonable, fact-based assertion B) you mildly insult him with a straw-man argument C) individuals are Democrats, when talking about the party it is "Democratic", using your language "Democrat controlled House" is to use the pejorative language of the Republicans D) as mentioned further up thread, over 50% of the US public views Snowden as a whistle-blower, if you wanna talk about a popular vote....

              •  my bad on the "Democrat" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                You're correct that is a Republican pejorative and I should have been more careful with my typing.

                But neither you or bbb have answered my question: If you're bothered by this what's your plan?

                If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:55:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Okay so you concede that this is basically (7+ / 0-)

              bullshit. You know damn well taking back the House wont change a thing on the FISA court front. There are plenty of other good reasons to take it back, but this isn't one of them.

              I think i've shared my views on this whole issue extensively and don't need to repeat them.

              •  >"other good reasons to take it back" - granted (0+ / 0-)

                If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:53:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  you shared views but what's your plan? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan

                Sorry I don't spend that much time in dkos comment threads. I used the word "Overton". There is very little chance that a Republican controlled House will even hold hearings on this. Is there slightly more of a chance that Pelosi would? It seems to me that extremists taking over the House has happened recently. It would be interesting, if unlikely, if there were enough progressives elected next year that, in league with some Republicans, the national security state could at least be examined.

                So you have any other ideas on this (maybe shared elsewhere that I didn't read)?

                If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:00:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Democrat controlled House would be worse? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              quill

              I think it would be. Why? Because we would have the same thing we do now.  The apologists who would care, or who would defend it because the Dems are in charge. Who is really going to challenge this kind of stuff no matter who is in charge? Progressive Dems, and Libertarian Republicans. The rest of the Dems have already shown if they are in charge they won't oppose it. And the Republicans, Most them are on board defending the NSA and the programs, and that would change no matter who is in charge.

              "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

              by Lowgun on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:04:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Libertarian Republicans" sure why not (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Deep Texan, yorkiedoglover

                sacrifice the EPA for what, exactly?

                Strange blog on which to argue against a Democratic Party controlled House.

                If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:09:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Please show me (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  quill

                  were I endorsed Libertarian republicans? My question and statements was.

                  Who is really going to challenge this kind of stuff no matter who is in charge? Progressive Dems, and Libertarian Republicans.
                  I was saying who would oppose this kind of crap. And one clue it is not the DLC, the third way, blue dogs, are any other part of the main branches of the Democratic party, and even fewer Repugs.

                  "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

                  by Lowgun on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:18:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  actually there's an interesting alliance there (0+ / 0-)

                    I know some not-insane Republicans and they are put off by the centrist Democrats. The problem is they tend to vote tribally (mostly subconsciously on race) so getting through to them on economic issues would take a Democrat with real integrity on those issues. Unfortunately I don't include the Clinton/Obama Democrats in that category (and neither do they).

                    I'm a lesser evilist but a movement, starting in the House of course or further down ticket, to bring some integrity to the table on NSA and economic issues might get some real traction.

                    Sorry(?) to derail the usual snark filled comment thread flame war but I think we may be in agreement here. Just to continue in standard dkos flame war fashion I personally am put off by the blog meme "Repugs" ... so there ....

                    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

                    by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:27:29 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  "What's the point of taking back the house (5+ / 0-)

        on this particular issue?"

        Can we take it back for a few other issues at least?

        Money doesn't talk it swears.

        by Coss on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:18:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dear diarist, dear jgnyc: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Heavy Mettle

      What's a "FISC Court"?

      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 Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:08:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you mean like what happened in 2008? EOM (0+ / 0-)

      "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

      by Lowgun on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:58:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  you have a better idea? EOM (0+ / 0-)

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:05:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not really, (0+ / 0-)

          nothing that wouldn't get me banned for speaking it. Both parties are broken, bought and paid for by the same masters.

           

          "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

          by Lowgun on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:10:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I ma not sure that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Heavy Mettle, Catte Nappe, CenPhx

    "fans" is an accurate description of people who agree with his actions because it implies something trivial like a gaggle of reality show watchers. And very few legislators have ever even challenged the concept of FISA courts.

  •  Go Snowden! The last American patriot. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Jaime Frontero, lostinamerica

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:11:02 AM PDT

  •  Those things sound hard. (4+ / 0-)

    How about i just blame Obama?

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:13:46 AM PDT

  •  Snowden's secret: Ripeness Was All (0+ / 0-)

    Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. . . . Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. . . .

    Ironic that Snowden was key to Catch 22.

    Ayn is the bane! Take the Antidote To Ayn Rand and call your doctor in the morning: You have health insurance now! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:18:19 AM PDT

  •  Must I post my Excuse List again? (25+ / 0-)

    Diarist, yours are included, I think:

    GENERAL YAWN/MEH
         - Why is everyone surprised?
         - Where was this discussion 10 years ago?
         - The government has assured us everything is on the level, and I trust them.
         - You endorsed these policies when you voted for [Democrat]
         - You're giving this data voluntarily with every click.
         - Just use snail mail instead.
         - They've already been doing this for a long time, now.
         - Every other country does it, too.

    GREENWALD
         - is a liar.
         - hates President Obama.
         - is just some blogger.
         - is gay.*
         - I don't like him.
         - I don't trust him.

    EDWARD SNOWDEN
         - is a traitor who just wants to make us look bad.
         - is a fame whore.
         - is just some hacker.
         - is a high school drop-out.
         - went to Hong Kong.
         - is a spy for [whatever country he's currently in]
         - voted for/donated to Ron Paul.
         - There's discrepancies in Snowden's reported salary.
         - His girlfriend was a pole dancer.

    DAILY KOS META-RELATED
         - Libertarians are infiltrating Daily Kos to divide Democrats.
         - Real Democrats get behind the president no matter what.
         - Somebody called me a name.
         - These leaks will damage Democrats in the coming mid-term elections.
         - Godwin.

    NATIONAL SECURITY
         - I'll give up YOUR rights to be protected from some nuke-weilding terrorists.
         - 50 terrorist “events” were foiled, thanks to these policies.
         - It's legal. It's all done in accordance with the law.
         - No direct access to servers.
         - It's just metadata.
         - Relax, no one's listening to your phone calls.
         - If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.





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

    by DeadHead on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:21:58 AM PDT

  •  you really have a bug up your ass about this (6+ / 0-)

    and it's not even the actual story.  Way to miss the point.

    And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

    by Mortifyd on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:23:39 AM PDT

    •  Bug (0+ / 0-)

      I do actually.   Cheerleading a criminal is the type of stuff the right wingers do.  

      I think we are better.  

      •  Do you support the prosecution of James Clapper? (5+ / 0-)

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:37:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you support the prosecution of Ed Snowden? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          Both should be prosecuted, right?

          •  Yup. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fou

            Both of them should be. It's amazing that people don't get this about people who don't support Snowden. It doesn't mean we think the Obama Administration should get a pass or that Clapper shouldn't be in jail, it's that we think Snowden is as much of a criminal as Clapper is. It's really not that hard.

            Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

            by Matt Z on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:38:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  as should the Bush-era torturers, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JosephK74

            from the President on down...

            as should the criminals who crashed the world economy.

            If justice truly was blind and caught wrongdoers of all classes in its net, I would have no problem with the prosecution of Edward Snowden. I think he did an enormous service for the cause of liberty and transparency, so I would hope for a not guilty verdict or lenient sentencing. That's my personal, emotional take though, which should have no part in justice for all. There's no real doubt that Snowden broke various laws as written...

            ...as did Clapper...

            and unlike Snowden, Clapper could be arrested today. Until that's done, the Administration's bungling efforts to apprehend Snowden can only seem hollow and hypocritical. As long as we have a many-tiered justice system, I want Snowden to find safe haven.

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:49:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you call for justice to be blind, but you don't (0+ / 0-)

              support the prosecution of Ed Snowden as long as James Clapper is free?

              I think Clapper should resign. I don't think it's possible to prove he committed perjury in the legal sense, but he clearly lied.

              I think Snowden should volunteer to face trial. I respectfully disagree with Ellsberg. Snowden's trial would erase all doubts that people have about his motivations and would put the focus back squarely where it belongs: the debate about the merits and perils of the NSA program.

              You say you wish he finds safe haven. Ironically, he'll never find safe haven so long as he's on the run. His worst fears are more likely to come true so long as he continues to flee from justice. So long as he puts himself at the mercy of the hypocrisy of foreign leaders, he'll never be safe.

              •  American justice ISN'T blind, and never has been. (0+ / 0-)

                The class and racial makeup of our overflowing prisons amply attests to that.

                Until the many-tiered justice system is demolished, why would I applaud "justice" for Edward Snowden--a fugitive in the cause of transparency, whatever his unknowable personal motivations may be--while my real enemies like James Clapper and motherfucking John Yoo smirk in freedom and transparency?

                (At least here in Illinois, we take a stab at justice for all, having put four of our last seven governors in prison!)

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:23:01 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  you assume I support Snowden (0+ / 0-)

        because I point out he's not the real story - BZZZZT.

        Wrong answer.

        And we sail and we sail and we never see land, just the rum in the bottle and a pipe in my hand...

        by Mortifyd on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:12:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why is there an apostrophe in your title? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Just Bob, Papuska

    It can't be a contraction of "fan" and "is," and I doubt you meant to indicate a possessive.

  •  let's see how many ways you are wrong (32+ / 0-)

    oh, I am not going to go through all the ways, because for you it would be a waste of time

    1.  public opinion has moved as people learn more, and increasingly they do NOT view Snowden as a traitor, despite the hammering in the MSM and by the likes of Feinstein and others

    2.  There is a lot of testimony from other people who blew whistles on NSA misdeeds about how correct Snowden is, including by someone who helped design the processes

    3.  from a technological standpoint it is far easier and far cheaper to grab everything on everybody, not just metadata, and then explore afterwards

    4.  much of what has been put out by people like Clapper is if you parse their language non-denial denials - that is if your wording is not EXACT they will dismiss it even if your expressions is substantially correct

    5.  One can abhor what the government is doing and be grateful that SOMEONE was willing to take the risk to expose it without being a "fanboy" as you choose to be so dismissieve

    6.  we have had indications for quite some time that the scope of what NSA was doing was far greater than what they would admit - this includes from Senators who sit on the Intelligence Committee and are therefore at least somewhat "read in"

    7. The constitutionality of some of the applicable laws has never been determined by a competent court b/c of the government asserting state secrets any time the issue comes close to being raised

    8.  the existence of  law duly passed is not sufficient - after all, Martin Luther King Jr. and many in the Civil Rights movement (including a then 16-17-18 year old now known as teacherken) deliberately broke laws they view as unjust  (in my case I never got arrested, but that was just happenstance)

    9.  If you think following the law is the highest value, then you dismiss people like Gandhi, and you are on a slippery slope towards acquiescence in things like the Nuremberg Codes.

    It is possible to support the disclosure of these programs to force the kind of discussion we did NOT have either in 2001 or when some of the programs were reauthorized.

    We also know, thanks to James Risen and others, that many things were done WITHOUT approval by Congress

    Is it possible to disagree without resorting to the kind of language you use, like "fanboy" -   which is the equivalent of someone who is critical of the President calling his supporters "obamabots" -  that is one way of avoiding addressing the substance of the issue

    It is precisely because of that language that I have taken the time to post this comment.

    Whether or not we choose voluntarily to give information to our supermarket company or to Facebook under terms which they cannot share information that specifically identifies us with outsiders is very different than the government gathering all that information up.  When John Poindexter first proposed this and the Congress objected, Rumsfeld did an end run.  

    Whether corporations should have restrictions on the information they gather and retain?  We need that debate as well.

    The STASI would be jealous of what NSA is doing - and that is only what we KNOW they are doing.  

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:30:02 AM PDT

  •  Whatdya Know? (6+ / 0-)
    One last note....Google, Amazon, Face Book and any company or merchant you have ever swiped your credit card with has way more information about you than the NSA....You do know this?
    One last note....The decision that Pluto is no longer a "planet" was voted upon by four hundred twnety-four members of the International Astronomical Union in Prague, the capital and largest city of the Czech Republic.

    One really last note: The two statements above have exactly equal relevance to the subject at hand, so I fail to see how you decided to mention the one rather than the other unless you flipped a coin or something.

    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

    by stevemb on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:30:30 AM PDT

  •  Without Edward Snowden's brave (21+ / 0-)

    actions, we wouldn't have even KNOWN all this stuff was happening in the first place. And after listening to Diane Feinstein defend it, we sure won't have luck convincing the still 9-11 cowering, be very afraid Congress to un-do the Patriot Act.

    The Founders left us a government of checks and balances precisely because they were so in tune with the concept of the corrupting effect of absolute power. But we can't keep these checks on our govenrment in place if we don't know what the hell is being done.

    The system is supposed to work like this... someone is suspected by authorities of breaking the law or planning to do so. The authorities go to a court, present their suspictions and get the OK to wiretap, etc.   But that is not what is happening.  My email, info, phone calls etc. are being swept up in a data base that is impossible for any court to oversee.  I HAVE NO ADVOCATE IN THIS SYSTEM TO PROTECT MY FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. ( I ususally don't capitalize stuff, but it seems that you and many others miss this point completely).  

    Obama said, “If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress and don’t trust federal judges to make sure we’re abiding by the Constitution, then we’re going to have some problems here,”  Well, excuse me for understanding our Constitution, Bill of Rights and legal history, but TRUST is not what any generation of Americans should do with any group in power.  

    Edward Snowden reminded us of that.  

  •  A Libertarian manages to get Liberals (6+ / 0-)

    to push for the elimination of a government agency and you think bad things about him? And has also managed to get Liberals to demonize the Obama administration? And push for smaller government?
    I have to wonder why you and I are in the minority on this site. The anti-government paranoia is mind-boggling.

    •  ? (5+ / 0-)

      So any opposition to what some view as government overreach is 'illiberal'?

      Opposition to over reach on women's reproduction health and choice is illiberal?

      Opposition to a multi-decade overreach in the form of the 'war on drugs' is illiberal?

      Opposition to the massive spending and global over reach of the US military is illiberal?

      Opposition to the massive resources committed to propping up the US Financial industry is illiberal?

      Your comment strikes me as the pinnacle of the strawman argument - if I oppose ANY government action then I oppose all government action

      It isn't anti-government paranoia necessarily - it is fair to say that many of us remain disturbed by the corporate overtake of the government evidenced by actions of BOTH parties

      If the Obama administration had been using the resources of government to aide and assist in bringing health care to the population - even if that had been through hidden channels - You might well be seeing a very different reaction among those that You demonize as aligning with libertarians presently

      "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

      by josephk on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:48:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A diary talking about Obama "fanboys" (10+ / 0-)

    would be HR'd into oblivion.

    Just sayin.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:44:48 AM PDT

    •  not sure - there are jerks here that survive (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, lostinamerica

      in the past I got HR for using "obamabot"

      but have not had a HR in some time

      what if i took the risk and repeated what you said and did not use quotations, would that lead to a HR?

      I will be brave and try it

      Obama fanboys

      lets see what happens

    •  I know, right? (5+ / 0-)

      That's how those apologist, f**king idiot, good german, authoritarian, collaborators are. They think they can name call any one.

      And the fact that a Democratic site whose primary goal is to elect more and better Democrats, as stated by the  Sites Democratic owner, would favor a Democratic President over a Ron Paul contributor living in a Russian airport is heresy.

      If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

      by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:00:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A Democratic President... whose stance on the NSA (7+ / 0-)

        is strongly backed by George Bush and Dick Cheney.

        Since we're doing guilt by association and all.

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:03:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wasn't "doing guilt by association". (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueyedace2

          I was putting your claim...

          A diary talking about Obama "fanboys" would be HR'd into oblivion.
          ...into context.

          If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

          by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:15:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right! I just imagined this: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DeadHead
            a Ron Paul contributor living in a Russian airport...

            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

            by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:19:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. You didn't imagine it. (0+ / 0-)

              You just don't understand the difference between subjective (fanboy) and factual (Ron Paul contributor), or context.

              The thing about context is it requires you to read the whole comment....and then keep it in context of the comment that it was replying to.

              If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

              by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:27:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One would hope that the strong support of Bush (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JosephK74, DeadHead

                and Cheney would force a Democrat to think long and hard about the policy being defended.

                Guess not.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:33:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  One would hope that the calling out of (0+ / 0-)

                  specious and unsupported claims about the DKos community, claim a nonexistent victimhood and overlook the transgressions of like-minded commenters would force a poster to think long and hard about the BS they are posting.

                  Guess not.

                  If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                  by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:46:36 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Do you know what "guilt by association" means? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA, CS in AZ

              It's not when we judge Snowden by the candidates he backs and the countries he chooses to flee to.  Those are associations he chose, unlike judging Obama because of (name bete noir du jour) agreeing with Obama.  

              "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

              by Inland on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:32:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't share your disdain for countries that dare (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                put the interests of working people above those of the masters of the universe.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:39:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And it's fair to judge you for your (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ord avg guy, FiredUpInCA

                  belief Russia puts working people first. It's not guilt by association.

                  "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

                  by Inland on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:57:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I had in mind the Latin American countries (0+ / 0-)

                    that offered Snowden asylum. I make no defense of Russia, but I agree, my comment can be read as though I do.

                    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                    by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:15:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Do you know what "Ad hominem" means? (0+ / 0-)

                Guess you don't, because it's your go-to argument every time.

                To destroy the message, defame the messenger.

                Too bad it's so damn effective, because it's a thoroughly dishonest argument.

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

                by TheOtherMaven on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:27:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I'm tempted to steal this for my sig line (4+ / 0-)
        That's how those apologist, f**king idiot, good german, authoritarian, collaborators are. They think they can name call any one.
        Thanks for making me laugh this morning! I needed it.
      •  Except (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lepanto, ord avg guy
        And the fact that a Democratic site whose primary goal is to elect more and better Democrats, as stated by the Sites Democratic owner, would favor a Democratic President over a Ron Paul contributor living in a Russian airport is heresy.
        There's been plenty of criticism of this Democratic President on this Democratic blog dedicated to electing more and better Democrats. If the policy is bad, it gets called-out as such, for the most part. Several front pagers, including Markos himself, have done so. This isn't rocket science. That's the better Democrats part of the equation.

        You and "like-minded" commenters here are the only ones who reduce criticism of this president's continuation of Bush policies into something so simplistic as discarding a Democratic president in favor of a "Ron Paul contributor living in a Russian airport."

        Why? Because it's all about personalities with you. You want to find in Snowden a figure you can accuse critics of "worshipping" in a manner similar to what ardent supporters have been accused of doing with Obama.

        And yes, that's just my personal take on it, in case you start demanding quotes and links to "where you said that."

        (Oh yeah, LOL on your use of the word "heresy." That explains a lot, actually, so thank you for that.)




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

        by DeadHead on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:36:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Listen DH... (0+ / 0-)

          If you're going to continue to troll me from diary to diary can you at least try to be a little more interesting?

          And just to let you know, I won't be responding to whatever insipid smear about me you post in reply. You and I have fucked up enough diaries as it is with the ole back and forth. It's disrespectful to the diarists and to this site.

          I accept my 50% share of responsibility for that. But the days of you misrepresenting and trying to smear me and I pointing out your obvious shortcomings ad nauseum are over.

          The last word is yours, little buddy.

          If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

          by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 05:34:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I suspected (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Free Jazz at High Noon

            You complain about me not responding to the points raised in your comments, so I actually try to do so, and what do you do?

            You accuse me of trolling you from diary to diary because I responded to you in two separate diaries in the same day, having not said a word in reply to you for several days prior.

            You then throw accusations of "smearing," so as to avoid addressing my comment, of course.

            And to top it all off, you resort to smug, condescending terms like "little buddy" in an attempt to assert some sort of faux intellectual superiority, the last refuge of someone whose talk amounts to little more than hot air.

            But I do appreciate your conceding the last word. I will take that as your inability to respond to my original comment, and wish you a pleasant evening.




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

            by DeadHead on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:48:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  "...really angered Snowden's fanboys" (14+ / 0-)

    Screw your condescending bullshit.

    May the Conservative Supremes share Paula Deen's heart-stopping culinary tastes as much as they share her cultural ones.

    by pajoly on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:45:45 AM PDT

  •  No good deed goes unpunished (11+ / 0-)
    Edward Snowden is a criminal who broke the law.
    When the government breaks the law, it is nearly impossible for a U.S. citizen to defend itself from a rogue government without breaking laws, because the deck is stacked against us.
    All countries do it
    Wow.  Do I even need to answer that one?   Didn't your mother teach you about this fallacy?   Go ahead, jump off the cliff because your friends did, but don't expect us all to jump off that cliff, or vote for our country to do it.  Some of us have better sense.
    That is simply untrue...As Verizon stated the practice of establishing a FTP folder as a location for data provided as part of a court order is not "Direct Access" .  
    A former judge on the FISA court has spoken publicly about the problems with court.   There are strong indications that it is not a Constitutionally sound judicial process.  See comments above about the stacked deck.
    Google, Amazon, Face Book and any company or merchant you have ever swiped your credit card with has way more information about you than the NSA
    Google and Amazon do not employ large forces of men with gun and handcuffs who can appear at your door and haul you away to secret locations, as the U.S. government has been known to do.
    You do not like it...You think the FISC Courts are a sham or "Shadow Judiciary"?  

    Then Support lawmakers who want to change the current system...Help take the house back in 2014....

    We could not get attention focused on this issue, and could not learn enough about this process, nor have the proof to challenge this process in court, without...

    ...the courageous actions of Edward Snowden.  You are right, he probably won't be relaxing under the palms drinking Margaritas, because no good deed goes unpunished.

    But, now that the log jam has broken, I assure you that *we will.

  •  And (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, CroneWit, DFWmom, stevemb, CenPhx, JosephK74

    Lets say you are 100% right, he is guilty of all charges, including treason, a capital offense. Does that change what he leaked? Do we ignore what we were shown because the messenger is flawed?

      What if he was a common criminal, breaking into a house to steal everything not nailed downed. Finds evidence of a more severe nature. If he reveals what he discovers do we ignore it? No we don't, how many vile, truly evil people are in Witness Protection? If Snowden, had betrayed the trust of a mob boss, we would protect him and use his information, even if he was a mass murderer (ie Sammy The Bull).  His crimes shined light on bigger crimes. I would like to think we could all hold the government to a higher standard, than a twenty something.

    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

    by Lowgun on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:56:35 AM PDT

    •  Excellent point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OutcastsAndCastoffs, stevemb

      Excellent point about the federal witness protection program, and heartbreaking, that there is no similar safe refuge for those who reveal the crimes committed by our own government.

      The government is a beast which wields its power to protect itself.    The U.S. government is a particularly ferocious beast.  The question has yet to be answered, "Is there anyplace in the world that is safe for a man who publicly reveals the crimes of the U.S. government?"

      Or, has 1984 arrived, 30 years later than expected?

    •  He's not even charged with treason, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA, yorkiedoglover

      and the crimes he has actually been charged with are not capital offenses. If convicted on all charges, the maximum sentence he could receive would be 30 years.

      On to the rest of your question, I'd say no, don't ignore it because he happens to be a criminal. What I wish people could and would be willing to do is evaluate the information rationally and critically.

      For instance, the fact that Snowden did not actually reveal anything new. It has all been reported before, multiple times, over several years. All to little interest or outcry. Ask yourself why this is. Why was it ho-hum news for years, as articles were published and mostly ignored over and over again, until Snowden/Greenwald/Assange put on this show?

      They did attract massive attention -- give them credit for that! But he didn't actually reveal any new information, and he didn't reveal anything illegal. The vast majority of people do not seem to know this, and wrongly believe he did both. Why is this? Should that be a concern at all? To me it is because it makes me wonder what his agenda is and what his motives really are here.

      What they did was get people to pay attention to them and get worked up about this issue. But they did so by misinforming/misreporting on a number of key issues and facts. Since day one, they have all been playing the story intentionally to support their personal libertarian/anti-government agendas. This makes me suspect of everything they are saying. Not to say it's necessarily all wrong, but I certainly don't think it should be uncritically swallowed whole either. The shallowness and emotional reactions, the overwrought fear and paranoia about the government coming for us all... it's just weird to see this happening and it has the appearance of an orchestrated and largely successful manipulation to me.

      So, sure, yes pay attention to the facts of what has been going on. But make an effort to break out of the natural tendency toward confirmation bias, that tells us to read and listen only to sources that confirm what we already believe. Take in the full scope of this story. Look at what the FISA court and NSA are doing, by all means, if this is in fact all new to you. Listen to what we know from other reporting and other sources too. Listen to what our elected representatives have said, who are briefed on the full scope. Al Franken, for example. I do sort of think he's a person who deserves his words to be considered too. He's a senator who is on our side, and yet supports the government collecting this data. He wants more transparency and oversight but not an end to the programs. Maybe he has reasons for his views? Wouldn't it be worth finding out? Instead too many just dismiss him as "lying" and now one of them -- the evil government bad guys. This is a disturbing trend, IMO.

      •  Got A Credible Example? (0+ / 0-)

        I gave up on Franken after he showed his true colors during the SOPA fight.

        On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

        by stevemb on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:03:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asd (2+ / 0-)
        For instance, the fact that Snowden did not actually reveal anything new. It has all been reported before, multiple times, over several years. All to little interest or outcry. Ask yourself why this is. Why was it ho-hum news for years, as articles were published and mostly ignored over and over again, until Snowden/Greenwald/Assange put on this show?
          It was reported, but did anybody believe it? Before we had real evidence, how many people were shouted done and conspiracy theorists for saying the government was spying on them? You know, call them apart of the tin-foil hat squad.

           Hundred if not thousand in government knew about Tuskegee, it went of for years mostly ignored. Hell Clapper lied just last month to congress. There is a difference between suspecting, accusing, and having proof.

         And with the effort the admin is making to discredit Snowden, it just makes me wonder, what is next on the leaks that has them so worried?  

        "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

        by Lowgun on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:17:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Calling for an immediate pardon was so silly (5+ / 0-)

    that "fanboy" is appropriate.  Really, he's such a great guy you want him forgiven BEFORE knowing what he's done?  

    "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

    by Inland on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 06:59:52 AM PDT

    •  Obviously, some here would use "Obama fanboys" (0+ / 0-)

      because they think it's "appropriate" as well.

      Would you support their "right" to use it without sanction?

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:06:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please. (6+ / 0-)

        You can call Obama supporters whatever you want, except Obamabot. No sanctions whatsoever.

        The funny thing is they don't even have to be Obama supporters. They just have to not agree with some about how great Snowden/Greenwald are, or see the NSA data collection from a different perspective. Name call away!!!!

        Spare us the faux hypocrisy charge.

        If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

        by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:20:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So "cultists" and "worshippers" are two terms (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, ord avg guy

          acceptable for use in referring to ardent supporters of the President?

          Seems like I've seen those terms HRed quite readily.

          But thank you for declaring what is or is not acceptable for everyone else to HR here. I'll look forward to seeing you come to the defense of those being wrongly HRed for using "Obama cultists" in the future.

          In fact, I'll bookmark this comment of yours just in case people need a reminder that anything other than "Obamabot" is, according to ord avg guy, acceptable for use here.




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

          by DeadHead on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 02:55:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I appreciate the respect (0+ / 0-)

            You want to show me by referencing me as an authority. But if there is an expert around here on smears and dickishness that you can get away with you specifically don't need to look further than your keyboard.

            If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

            by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Projection. Projection. Projection. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ord avg guy

              You are the expert, indeed.

              Here I went and responded to the "substance" of your comment, like you admonished me for having neglected to do previously, and look how you respond.

              You sound like an angry and bitter person.




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

              by DeadHead on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 03:49:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                You think the substance of my comment was whether or not obamabot was the only term that is verboten?

                I'm starting to think maybe integrity isn't your real problem.

                While I don't expect you to understand what I mean,  I'll try to be more gentle with you as you continue to troll my comments.

                Have another rec, little buddy.

                If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

                by ord avg guy on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 04:09:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  When the immunity for Obama diary is posted (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        calling for pardons of unknown crimes you can mock the diarist in any terms you like.  

        "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

        by Inland on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:22:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  there were... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2, Matt Z

      Snowden 2016 slogans too.

      "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

      by JackND on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:11:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, quill

    sure is some tasty Kool-Aid ya got there.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:18:00 AM PDT

  •  I totally agree and I've been (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, arizonablue, Matt Z, FiredUpInCA

    saying this all along.  Snowden may be a hero to some, but a whistleblower he is NOT.  He did not expose any lawbreaking because it's all sanctioned under that horrible Patriot Act.

    The Patriot Act has got to go.

    •  I guess... (0+ / 0-)

      If you don't count the Constitution as "law", then perhaps it's not lawbreaking.   And, in this country, it appears that we don't count the Constitution as "law".

      It's quite a Pyrrhic victory to win that particular point, though.    Sort of winning the battle, and losing the war.

  •  If he's convicted, he gets 30 years max. (0+ / 0-)

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:48:37 AM PDT

  •  Snowden is a traitor under the facts if (0+ / 0-)

    it can be shown that he understood that what he did would aid the enemies of the United States, i.e., international terrorists who wish to attack us or our interests, and if what he did did aid them. I personally believe that there is a very strong case to be made that he did and it did.

    According to the Constitution, treason is defined only as “adhering to [the] Enemies [of the United States], giving them Aid and Comfort”.

    On the other hand, I believe that Snowden could mount a substantive defense against a treason charge. Whether it would prevail or not simply cannot be known at this point.

    •  Enemies? What "enemies"? (0+ / 0-)

      Or do you mean the only people on Earth who had NO clue of the amount and extent of this espionage - US, the American people, who have been given the mushroom treatment for decades?

      Are we the "enemy" now?

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

      by TheOtherMaven on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:32:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The NSA appears to believe so. Why else would (0+ / 0-)

        they put so much effort and finances into the surveillance of ordinary people. It has become painfully obvious that the US government and it's ruling oligarchs have a greater fear of the American public than they do of any foreign terrorist.

        There's an old adage about walking and quacking...

      •  That's rather silly (0+ / 0-)

        Enemies in this context would obviously mean those who attacked us and who we have been combatting since 2001, plus and their allies, supporters, and imitators.

        Were it not for the militarization of the response to 911 plus the witless invasion of Iraq, it would now be much more difficult to figure out who an “enemy of the United States” is, but since militarization was ordered by Congress and the military has been engaged ever since, it's easy and obvious.

  •  Ex Navy here and I agree. (6+ / 0-)

    When you take the oath it is understood that revealing secret info is not an option.

    Ellsberg released one document. This guy carried 4 laptops to the Chinese and the Russians and we got no idea what kind of intel they contain. We have less of an idea than Putin that's for sure.

    Whistleblower or not peeps here are misguided to the nth to idolize him not knowing what he gave up...

    "Fascism is attracting the dregs of humanity- people with a slovenly biography - sadists, mental freaks, traitors." - ILYA EHRENBURG

    by durrati on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:52:30 AM PDT

  •  Tipped and recd. Thank you for (5+ / 0-)

    posting this. Greenwald would do anything to damage Obama presidency. He is no friend to the president, never have been. Snowden's intentions are unknown to me but what he has done is a crime, as you have put clearly. There are legitimate means of fighting against a law or a system we dont like, like electing of leaders who would pass better laws. Harming one's country is not a legitimate fight against the laws we see as corrupt or in need of improvement, however.

    My gut feeling is that Mr. Snowden's motivations are not as "honorable" as many who like to think. I think he did what he did to damage Obama admin. Under Obama presidency, UnitedStates has improved its image internationally, largely due to Obama's foreign diplomacy skills. An attack like this surely must have calculated the resulting loss of trust and the embarrassment for the administration.

    What is worse? Mr. Snowden harmed his country in his zeal to harm the administration. Did he succeed? Not really. The admin and the US are both strong enough to recover from this. Snowden however will have to sleep in the bed he made. No country would trust to the one who betrayed his own.

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 07:59:04 AM PDT

    •  Well I sure agree with this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Claudius Bombarnac

      "No country would trust to the one who betrayed his own."

      However, it is not Mr. Snowden who did the betraying.

      We all made a big mistake by rolling over when the TSA started the travel scanning and body patting. I guess the government figured that we are easy.

      Every time in the history of our country (since John Adams and his cronies passed the Alien and Sedition Acts) when our government has violated our rights for a perceived threat, it has never turned out well for us citizens.  

      Will we ever learn?  From the title of this diary, it appears we will NOT.

      •  "Government," in our country, my friend, is us. (0+ / 0-)

        We have legitimate (hint: do not harm while fixing) ways and means to fix what is wrong. It takes time and lots of work of course (far more effort than stealing computers, high tailing to Hong Kong and Russia while giving interviews to smug Green bomb) to do it legitimately and you won't get to be the celebrity hero, heck no one will likely ever know your name and such...

        In other words, we got men and women in uniform getting killed in hell holes right this minute while this self righteous privileged twerp is 'making us honest.'

        Fuck Snowden and fuck Greenwald.

        Period.

        "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

        by zenox on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:13:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you may want to buy a copy (3+ / 0-)

          of Perilous Times by Geoffrey R. Stone, and stop the uber patriotic crap application to this situation.  We always have men and women fighting  in hell holes. What you need to ask yourself is 'what are they fighting FOR?'.

        •  Sorry, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IrishGreg, Fishtroller01

          but having formerly been one of those men and women in uniform, I am more pissed off with the holders of the Office of President, and the member of congress who have more power and trust placed in them, by us the citizens, than I do for  a twenty something.

               There is something wrong, really wrong, when you have Senators making statement like these

          Senator Wyden on the Senate floor in  2011: "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry."
          Wyden again Wired magazine 2011
          "We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says. When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands"

          Senator Udall also on the Senate Floor in 2011
          Udall:

          "Americans would be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out."

            There is no excuse, if they really felt they way they said, for them to keep quiet about it. They can't be sent to jail, or removed from the Senate for telling the people anything on the Senate floor, they may lose their committee assignment, be opposed by their party during election time, but they are protect by the Constitution for anything said,
          Article 1, section 6
          "and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

          "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

          by Lowgun on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:51:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, you're more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fishtroller01, milkbone

      concerned with harm to the administration, than harm to our rights.  This pretty much sums up everything wrong with a particular segment of the party.  You just can't be trusted to stand up fornthenrest of us and are willing to throw anything under the bus out of support for a man.

    •  It's a good thing "gut feelings" aren't admissible (0+ / 0-)

      in a court of law, then.

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

      by TheOtherMaven on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 01:33:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You've got your opinion, I've got mine (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx

    I haven't decided in the end if he is a hero, a traitor, both or something in-between. I do know that if he didn't do what he did, we wouldn't be having this much needed conservation about our Total Information Awareness  worldwide surveillance state.

    It's the loss of any kind of right to personal privacy for anyone in the entire world seemingly. I think however it was done it was important for that information to get out and get discussed by the society at large.

    But, somehow for you it's impossible to politely agree to disagree.

    I ask him if he was warm enough? "Warm," he growled, "I haven't been warm since Bastogne."

    by Unrepentant Liberal on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:10:55 AM PDT

  •  You are mistaken. (5+ / 0-)
    One last note....Google, Amazon, Face Book and any company or merchant you have ever swiped your credit card with has way more information about you than the NSA....You do know this?  
    No, actually the NSA has more then that, because it is literally true that the NSA routinely acquires information from all those companies, as well as others, and other sources of information.  They don't just get it when asked, they store information on every citizen routinely.

    Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

    by martianexpatriate on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:12:13 AM PDT

  •  United States Navy veteran supports Snowden (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fishtroller01, BigAlinWashSt, Lepanto
    Former NSA Exec: Government Spying Violates Constitution

    Pt. 2 Thomas Drake: Surrendering Civil Liberties Does Not Make America Safe

    Thomas Andrews Drake (born 1957) is a former senior official of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), decorated United States Air Force and United States Navy veteran, computer software expert, linguist, management and leadership specialist, and whistleblower. In 2010 the government alleged that he 'mishandled' documents, one of the few such Espionage Act cases in U.S. history. His defenders claim that he was instead being persecuted for challenging the Trailblazer Project.
    ...
    NOOR: So, Mr. Drake, you won the Sam Adams Award in 2011, and this year's Sam Adams Award has just been awarded to Edward Snowden, a man that you said did an amazing act of civil disobedience. Can you tell us exactly why Edward Snowden is a whistleblower and why you support him? And talk about why how your own personal journey affects your view of what Edward Snowden has done.
    ...
    DRAKE: Yeah. I mean, this administration, I mean, it's a war on truth-tellers and whistleblowers. The whistleblowers are their game. There's no protection for whistleblowing. The insider threat, whistleblowers are regarded as one of the primary threats. And so the administration wants to make sure they're snuffed out. I mean, what can I say? I mean, it's extraordinary what this--I mean, this administration has gone after more whistleblowers in terms of charging them and truth-tellers, charging them on the Espionage Act, the Espionage Act of all things, than all other administrations combined. I mean, it's just an extraordinary development in our history.
    ...


    More at The Real News
  •  What he did before he exposed and after are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG

    different, imo. I think the perception here in terms of %'s and in the general public would be notably different if he stayed stateside and it was CNN or the NYtimes instead of Wikileaks/Guardian.

    I think Snowden is a sort of a douchebag acolyte of Assange, and that if there's anyone that needed a PR person to whap them over the head before they did anything stupid, it was Snowden. BUT, that really has no affect on evaluating whether or not it was right to expose the info he did to the public.

    I was gonna listen to that, but then, um, I just carried on living my life. - Aldous Snow

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:41:59 AM PDT

  •  I'm a Navy vet too. Submarines, Vietnam era. (8+ / 0-)

    The real criminals are the ones you vote for. The ones who authorize illegal wars and cut food stamp budgets.  The ones who place sanctions on other countries so their children will fucking die.  The ones who spy on everyone supposedly to keep us safe when in reality it is to control us and to attack any dissenters of the Empire.  

    "America is the Terror State. The Global War OF Terror is a diabolical instrument of Worldwide conquest."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 08:58:37 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for expressing your concern (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wayoutinthestix, Lepanto

    About Snowden's fans.

    I'm more concerned with the smoking guns he revealed that confirm what a string of whistle blowers has previously stated.

    And the so-called "legality" verses "constitutionality", "correctness" and "hazards".

    Slavery used to be "legal". And marrying off 14 year old girls. And dumping toxic crap on the land and sea.

    400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

    by koNko on Wed Jul 10, 2013 at 09:52:05 AM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site