Skip to main content

Glenn Greenwald has refuted a Reuters report that suggested that he or Snowden were blackmailing or threatening the US government with leaks of classified materials.

A number of news outlets have characterized an interview of Glenn Greenwald as representing a threat to the US government. For example, Reuters/Huffington Post said:

Fugitive former U.S. spy contractor Edward Snowden controls dangerous information that could become the United States' "worst nightmare" if revealed, a journalist familiar with the data said in a newspaper interview.
...
"Snowden has enough information to cause harm to the U.S. government in a single minute than any other person has ever had," Greenwald said in an interview in Rio de Janeiro with the Argentinian daily La Nacion.

"The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."

The original interview is here.

Reuters hasn't misquoted Greenwald that I can see, but it decontextualized what he said in order to sensationalize it. Greenwald points out what they cut out of his answers. For example:

"Q: Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden?

"A: Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. [His] objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. [He] has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public." (emphasis added)

For Snowden to have created an insurance policy for himself by having damagingdocuments released if he is murdered is very different from Snowden planning to release documents to damage the US.

Indeed, what Greenwald said in the interview about how release of damaging information could occur is not much different than I have been saying in comments for weeks:
1) the full information, especially the most damaging parts, has not been released, nor will it be as long as Snowden is alive. The Russians don't have it. The Chinese don't have it.
2) should the full information be released, it will be a nightmare for the US, though not necessarily in the way people think. I think it's doubtful that the documents include, for example, the names of personnel in foreign countries who have facilitated data collection. However, they could well explain the technical means by which collection is done. That isn't exactly secret, by the way. Some of it is contained in the EFF lawsuit, for example.
3) the real danger is that the US government will force Snowden's hand. Keeping Snowden in Russia could force Snowden to barter the information he has (which goes far beyond anything he has in documents) for his freedom. It would have been far wiser to let him flee to a country which doesn't have experts in surveillance or the potential to damage US interests directly, as Russia does.

I have to leave this diary incomplete, but the links are there.

Time to stop hyperventilating, folks. It is what it is. What is the best way for the US to get out of this without damaging itself? It does not look like that it will be able to accomplish that by threats, bullying, or murder. So, what should our government do?

____
Update: CroneWit points out that the word "rogar" in Spanish can be translated "pray" rather than "beg." So, instead of Greenwald saying, "The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden..." the correct version should probably be "The U.S. government should be on its knees every day praying that nothing happen to Snowden..."

I agree with this interpretation. Greenwald likely gave the interview in English, where "praying that nothing happens" is idiomatic, and "begging that nothing happens" is not. So those who would like to turn this into Greenwald wanting to humiliate the USG should probably try elsewhere.  

Update: The people who think Snowden is a traitor or that his revelations are meaningless are losing the argument:

Snowden — who is currently seeking political asylum while holed up in Russia — is viewed as a "whistleblower" by 55% of poll respondents. Only 34% view him as a "traitor."

But the most significant change came in the public's view of the NSA's surveillance programs, which Snowden exposed in a series of leaks to the Washington Post and The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald.

By a 45-40 margin, voters now say that the government goes too far in restricting civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism efforts. That's a huge reversal from January 2010, when the public said by a 63-25 margin that the government didn't go far enough.  

Originally posted to CharlesII on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:53 AM PDT.

Also republished by The First and The Fourth.

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

  •  Tip Jar (119+ / 0-)
  •  Riiiight, and the statement (45+ / 0-)

    "give me your money or the kid gets it" is just a request for a loan.

    Isn't this the same website where everybody agrees the Republicans' "nice country ya' got here...." method of governing is bad?

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:59:54 AM PDT

    •  "Nice country ya got here" (10+ / 0-)

      OK, serious topic but that makes me laugh.

      •  Your irony detector must be busted. (74+ / 0-)

        Snowden is actually saying "Fucked up country you got here," and has proffered the damning evidence.  And at no point has he used the damning info to enrich himself ('give me the money or the kid gets it').  He understands that he's standing against the most powerful entity in the history of the planet and that his life, therefore, hangs in the balance.  

        It's not blackmail to provide assurances against your own murder or torture.  It's called being smarter than the pricks who've been wiping their asses with our Constitution.

        "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

        by nailbender on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:39:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, some of our fellow Kossacks.. (33+ / 0-)

          Are writing the latest chapter in the "kill the messenger" theme with the whole blackmail argument.   It's hardly blackmail to use information you have to try to avoid assassination or Manning style or worse torture..

          I just can't help but think that these same Kossacks would have hated every bit of what's going on if it were 2003 and the president were GWB.

          •  A reporter reporting the news (35+ / 0-)

            is now blackmail.

            Snowden is apparently trying to "blackmail" the US into not murdering him.  And people want to blame Greenwald for simply reporting this fact.  As though this is some huge ethical breach.  

          •  There are (24+ / 0-)

            a lot of Kossacks that believe what Snowden did was unequivocally bad but not because it was or it wasn't but rather because Barack Obama says that it is bad.  And yes, it is highly likely that many of those same Kossacks previously thought it was bad because George Bush said it was good and if Snowden had blown the whistle during Bush's administration, they would have hailed him as a hero.

            If Obama were on the other side of the argument, they would be too.  That's the same old banal dynamic at play here with the Snowden Sux contingent.  For that matter, that's the same old banal pie-fight-inciting dynamic that is at play here when progressives are on the other side of any issue than Obama.

            Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

            by democracy inaction on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:20:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, that's pretty much it.. (10+ / 0-)

              A tough pill to swallow for those of us who tend to think progressives are more facts-based, independent thinkers than the wingers...

              •  Responding to absurdities is tiresome indeed (9+ / 0-)

                The US being blackmailed by the likes of Glenn Greenwald.  The US, who is building enormous facilities for the sole purpose of monitoring every electronic communication needs to be protected from blackmail by Snowden.  The US, whose stated goal is full spectrum dominance, needs to be protected from blackmail.

                In some ways, simply responding to these outlandish talking points which are absurd on the face is to participate in the destruction of useful public discourse.  Which, of course, is the point.

                Assange has explained that the purpose of wikileaks was to prevent the government from maintaining a coherent internal narrative which is different from the public narrative they promote.  And the government, by its actions, has shown that this is indeed something they fear.  Meanwhile, the government or whoever-the-fuck these anti-democracy people are, works overtime to prevent the public from creating a coherent narrative which will empower us to see the world as it is and thus act in our own best interests.  But forcing us to waste time discussing a ridiculous scenario, they succeed in preventing us from discussing the truth of our lives.

                People who promote this nonsense are enemies of democracy.

                The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress. - Bacevich

                by geomoo on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:07:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Contrast this imaginary threat with this . . . (5+ / 0-)

                  . . . explicit threat from a high level government official (sorry, can't remember the name for the moment):  "We must own the internet." And that's just one example.

                  One threat is real and present, the other is a figment of the imagination.

                  The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress. - Bacevich

                  by geomoo on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:12:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wasn't that Cass Sunstein or the like? nt (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    geomoo, Tool

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

                    by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:14:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I thought it was someone on W's team. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kombema, 3goldens

                      Actually, thought it was Haynes, but can't find it under his name.

                      What could be more anti-democratic, and I'm sure the speaker considers himself a great patriot.  Oh yeah, just remembered, it was someone with a military title.

                      The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress. - Bacevich

                      by geomoo on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:16:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  That might be more believable (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                duhban, sviscusi

                if Snowden himself valued whistle-blowers during Bush's reign of terror(ism). I understood he believed in shooting them in the nuts then.  

                What we can't seem to stop doing is making this a hero/traitor issue.  Why?  How about "Thanks, Ed, we'll take it from here"?  

                I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                by I love OCD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:12:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Most of us critical of the NSA programs have said (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, snoopydawg, qofdisks

                  all along that this is primarily about PRISM, the Constitution, etc., and not about Snowden. It's the administration, which is aggressively persecuting and demonizing him, and its apologists, who have made it all ad hom about Snowden. It's definitely not a case of "everybody's doing it."

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

                  by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:16:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I guess that would be believeable (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sviscusi, Argyrios, qofdisks

                    if you could demonstrate that those primarily concerned with PRISM weren't the same people who post all the Snowden diaries.  There's a correlation that's hard not to see.  

                    Making him heroic seems just as important to some here as making him demonic is supposed to be to Obama.  So we spend all our energy on Obama and Snowden and the Patriot Act spins merrily along, leading me to believe this is on a par with the PO, chainedCPI, jail the banksters, impeach Bush controversies that split our attention from ALEC owning the US of A.

                    I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                    by I love OCD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:45:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just an observation, but seems that most of (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ask, TheOtherMaven

                      those who ended up diarying about Snowden directly, did so only after they'd diaried about NSA and noted that it was not about Snowden -- but were goaded into it because of the urgent effort to personalize the issues (ad hom) in the direction of Snowden and Greenwald. I still maintain that it's primarily about issues for the NSA programs critics, primarily about the traitor Snowden about those who apologize for it.

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

                      by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:30:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I read the diaries too. Don't forget that (0+ / 0-)

                        Jessalyn, who drives most of this, has a brave whistle-blowers agenda that trumps the true stories.  Snowden became the issue on day one.

                        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                        by I love OCD on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:22:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I'm actually starting to think (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WheninRome, nota bene

                  that Snowden stated all that garbage as a means of making the people who were inevitably going to do a backround check on him into believing that he would be a perfect lockstep soldier.

                  Why else would they ever trust him with that type of clearance or information if he didn't parrot the authoritarian tripe that is expected of these people.

                  I'm just speculating but we won't know until he actually has an interview about those comments/views.

                  “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

                  by Tool on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:21:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  A rumor about what Snowden *used* to think. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheOtherMaven, DeadHead, qofdisks

                  Now that's a new tool for the "Look! A shiny object!" crowd.

                  The object of focus is our government's descent into dystopian citizen-monitoring (ie, -control) methods; not the purported personality defects (first "narcissist", now "hypocrite," apparently) of the guy who exposed the travesties' details and breadth.

                  "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

                  by nailbender on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:19:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Not my recollection. I thought he was (0+ / 0-)

                  a big supporter of Jesselyn Radack, Marcy Wheeler and others who supported and/or represented whistleblowers.

            •  I'm not so sure I agree with that. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CroneWit, Kombema, felix19, qofdisks

              It's neat.  It makes a certain amount of sense.  And I imagine it must apply to some folks.

              But I don't think I can accept lockstep party-line adherence as the only explanation.

              There is a vast disparity in the way discussion goes, between party-line folks and some others.  Vast.

              The dynamic here (and at most other places around the 'net - Left and Right) is infused with an air of desperation; as though all the stops have been pulled out, in some huge power play.  It's weird.  And interesting.  And kind of sad.

              It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

              by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:13:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think it's a mixture. (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens, Tool, Tam in CA, qofdisks, ziniko

                We KNOW that there have been diaries (I can search for one if you want) that said that we should trust Obama on all this because he was "wise" and we should share in his wisdom, to paraphrase it not too badly.  I plowed through a long rec list diary to get the point before I finally came across that nugget and went, aw fuck, waste my time.

                BUT... I don't think it's all that.  I think there's also an authoritarian streak within both parties.  I spoke about this yesterday, and somebody pointed me to the Political Compass quiz, which gives you an X,Y coordinate number for your political alignment.  In the Political Compass test, you can be either right or left AND authoritarian or libertarian simultaneously.  That goes to deeper issues than those that normally define us easily as liberals or conservatives.

                Like WinSmith's diary yesterday, which made the disgusting claim that as liberals, we're supposed to BELIEVE in government, unlike the conservatives...  I don't doubt that he does believe in government, and that many people who support the surveillance state on this do believe in the government, and that the people running the government are our guys and they are wise and trustworthy and have our best interests at stake just as much as the guys who run social security do.

                People like me see a huge difference, though, between government programs and "government programs."  I don't feel any liberal obligation to support any of this crap.

                I should, however, I suppose, recognize that some of the people hating on Snowden and trying to say that none of his revelations are significant really are liberals by most other definitions and are sincere about this.  This isn't a left or right thing anymore.

                The ones I can't take are the ones making dishonest arguments that you know they don't believe, just to keep the pie fight going.  I hate that.

            •  I haven't seen that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WinSmith

              here.  

              Seriously if anyone calls Snowden 100 percent wrong I haven't seen it.  

              Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

              by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:45:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Binary thinking again (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                delphine, 3goldens, qofdisks

                It MUST be "100% all right" or "100% all wrong".
                Nuance is not allowed.
                Sux/Rox is the only game in town.

                Except...a man's life is not a fucking game.

                The Bill of Rights is not a fucking game either.

                If the human race goes extinct, binary thinking will have helped to kill it.

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

                by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:58:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think that's true. (0+ / 0-)

              There are some who think that, but I don't think there are a lot.

              Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

              by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:50:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You may not, most might not, (0+ / 0-)

                but there have been diaries making that very point just that way that got reclisted.

              •  I see it play out (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WheninRome, Tam in CA, qofdisks

                time and time again.  Every time Obama is criticized on this site no matter how valid the criticism, there is always a handful of diaries that hit the rec list about how the criticism is bullshit because [insert rationalization here] and the critics are driving the "Obama Derangement Batmobile" or some other equally childish taunt.  Those diaries are always full of hyperbole, strawmen and petty, juvenile insults and they are recommended to the rec list by same group of users who then give each other virtual high-fives throughout the comments sections for agreeing with each other, looking for any excuse to let loose their itchy HR trigger fingers on any dissenters if they can bait them into saying something in anger that is even remotely HR-worthy.  Many, many users have been HR'ed just for pointing out this very dynamic if there is one word in their comment that the "offended" Kossacks can claim victimhood over ("You said 'pony,' have a doughnut").

                Seriously, start looking at who rec's those diaries, you'll see the same names again and again.  Look at who piles on the HRs when they entice someone to cross the line.  They're the same names that rec concern-trolling diaries about Snowden and their discomfort with his "hero worship" here.  They're the same names that rec all the banal diaries that tout Obama's accomplishments and scold Kossacks for not being sufficiently supportive of him.

                They're the same names that rec'ed all those diaries that hit the rec list prior to Obama's reelection that scolded Kossacks for daring to criticize Obama so close to the election (there is always an excuse for why Obama can't be criticized right now).  They're the same names that rec'ed all those diaries during the healthcare debate that were opposed to the public option once Obama dropped his support for it and that scolded other Kossacks for continuing to vocally support it and for criticizing Obama for dropping his support for it.

                No matter what the issue, if progressives are on one side and Obama takes the other, those same Kossacks will take whatever side Obama takes even if they had previously argued for the other side and there will be fights over it here.

                There is a clear pattern.

                Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

                by democracy inaction on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:58:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I think some of these folks (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ask, qofdisks

            are really just part of the smear machine we see all the time. Maybe they are not enriched by it (as in employed) but they carry in on either knowingly or unknowingly.

          •  Well if you wanted to put a target on Snowden's (0+ / 0-)

            back by Al Quaeda maybe you would propose that he has so much valuable information.  I think Greenwald is making this lost young person's situation even more precarious.

            The US will try him for espionage and he can make his case.  Others may not want anything more than to get that info that supposedly damages our country any way that they can get it.  If I were Snowden I might start asking Greenwald to be quiet.  Greenwald is delusional that's for sure and definitely narcissistic.  

            New Rule:  If you are young do not follow Ron Paul's direction.

        •  dhonig is really Mr Snowden!? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fogiv, sviscusi

          Wow.

        •  An invitation (0+ / 0-)

          ...to transparent, freedom-loving, democratic states like Iran or North Korea, who would love to hurt the U.S., to kill Snowden. These kids are irresponsible idiots. And anyone who thinks the Chinese and Russians didn't get something is hopelessly naive. You think they play nice? History, anyone?

          "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

          by eyeswideopen on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:19:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huh? (5+ / 0-)

            Does Iran and North Korea have a history of killing people to send a message to the United States to have state secrets revealed? If you could provide examples then that would be great.

            Do you think China and Russia didn't already know they were being hacked and spied on? Do you think Snowden has information that they didn't already know? If you do then I believe you are hopelessly naive.

            History anyone? Can you provide some?

            Thanks.

          •  I don't know if they have got (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens

            anything from Snowden's laptop yet,

            But our government doesn't seem terribly concerned about that.  If they were, they wouldn't be working so very hard, embarrassing them in fact, like with the Morales incident, to keep Snowden from leaving Russia for some neutral country.

            That's why I can't take that argument seriously.  

            •  You have to understand the current State Dept. (6+ / 0-)

              State is a mess.

              It's scary.

              I read the press briefings daily, and am embarrassed. The spokesman often does not know what the questioner is talking about and, when s/he does, almost invariably gives an answer that sounds at the same time condescending and dishonest.

              Even worse, State under Hillary closely coordinated with DoD and the intelligence agencies. Now, this is very simply dangerous. State is supposed to be in the business of relationships. DoD and CIA are not exactly who you want to be coordinating with if you want to form relationships. Trust in State by our foreign partners is, I believe, way down.  

              In my admittedly limited dealings with State, I have been just appalled at how arrogant and ignorant the responses have been.

              Now, how exactly the Morales thing was done, I don't know. But I think the Administration was pretty desperate. Why take such a chance otherwise? Can anyone imagine the repercussions if something had gone wrong? They clearly did not have good intel, but were willing to gamble high-stakes?

              That sounds like desperation to me.

              •  Something *did* go "wrong" - their intel was false (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dumbo, WheninRome, qofdisks

                Snowden wasn't on the President's plane, and the US Government wound up with egg all over its face.

                Not to mention pissing off every country south of Mexico.

                Nice job breaking it, folks.

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

                by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:32:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, yeah, but I'm thinking more of... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dumbo, WheninRome, qofdisks

                  Well, yeah, but I'm thinking more of the possibility that in the confusion, Morales' plane crashed. It's no small thing to turn a plane around with no clear destination.

                  Oh, and Mexico is p--sed. To my great surprise, Pena Nieto said that the espionage was intolerable. Gave himself a little wiggle room, but even he was not able to defend the action against Morales.

              •  High stakes, 0% chance to win. (5+ / 0-)

                That's what happened in the Morales case.

                What would they have done if he HAD been on that plane?  Would they have taken him off kicking and screaming with a hood over his head while the Austrians in the passenger lounge snapped pics that went straight to Twitter?

                That would have been far more embarrassing than what happened.  

                I really think somebody dumb and panicked was making the calls on that, somebody who didn't think through the "win" scenario enough to see how devastatingly bad it would have been.  And nobody was there with enough authority to say, "Calm down, that's no solution."

                Ferreting out the real intent of the NSA/CIA and State Department in the Morales thing isn't that easy.  The idea that they had to do that in order to keep him from revealing secrets to "the enemy" doesn't click with the fact that they have tried to crack down on neutral countries that might have given them a way to get him OUT of Ruissia -- a desired goal if you are actually concerned he might cut a deal with Russians if he gets desperate.

                If they did want to get control of things, the simplest but not necessarily most satisfying solution would be to go to Snowden and try to talk him down from the ledge, so to speak.  That they haven't done that, that they've escalated every step of the way, shows to me that there's an element of institutional retaliation that has driven things like the Morales incident.  Somebody wanted to teach that rat bastard Snowden (and maybe Morales, too) a lesson about the long reach of the US government.

              •  What State is "supposed to be" and what it (0+ / 0-)

                has been since the fifties are two different things. Desparate to get in touch with the CIA? ZPicket any US embassy. The easiest way for a dissident Iranian to fall into the hands of the SAVAK? Go to the US embassy for help.  State and the CIA cooperate routinely, State is something of a CIA outpost.

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:34:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  There has always been cooperation. Not like this. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  enhydra lutris, TheOtherMaven

                  One US diplomat in any given embassy was a CIA officer. He and the ambassador were in close communication. If a coup was mounted, they both knew, but the ambassador was in charge.

                  What happened under Hillary's tenure is that State made itself the junior partner. In the Honduran coup, the US ambassador did not know about the coup ahead of time, even though there were strong indications that the US had a hand in it.  

                  I don't pretend to understand what Hillary thought she was accomplishing. But my perception is that State emerged from her tenure a much weaker player than it had been under Rice.

      •  No, that would be Wall St's line. (15+ / 0-)

        But thanks anyway.

        Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:09:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  maybe it's a bit more like this. (8+ / 0-)

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:41:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Greenwald's comment was "decontextualized" (15+ / 0-)

      kind of like all the "shocking" information that he's been revealing. It is always interesting to see how a propagandist reacts when the propaganda is used against him. Strikes me as a bit thin skinned.

      To answer the OP's question, what the US can do is pursue Snowden. His threat simply means that the information IS out,  so all the US government can do is get Snowden and try him.

    •  If Snowden were murdered by our government... (26+ / 0-)

      What kind of government would that be?  

      Remember that "My country right or wrong" is an abbreviated quote. The full quote is "My country right or wrong. If right, to be kept right. If wrong, to be set right."  

      I hope and trust that our government is not in the business of murdering people who cross it. But if it is that sort of government, and if the consequences of murder were serious embarrassment and loss of influence, then that would be part of a process to set it right.

      •  Actually that's two different quotes: (14+ / 0-)

        Stephen Decatur (US naval officer): "My country, right or wrong". Period, full stop.

        Carl Schurz (statesman and social activist):  "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

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

        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:21:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I've noticed the only people saying (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jeff in nyc, Quicklund, sviscusi, Bonsai66

        'murder', 'assassination', etc are the pro-Snowden-always folks and the assorted troll who is RIGHTFULLY HR'd when they openly advocate the execution of Snowden. What's the motivation?

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

        by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:33:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Our government is already there (16+ / 0-)

        We already murder people who we consider terrorists (which I might ad haven't actually killed someone).
           It's really not that big of a step to kill political dissidents like Stalin used to do.

         And yet some people here will still defend killing him.

        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

        by gjohnsit on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:52:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name one: some people here will still defend killi (6+ / 0-)

          Get on it. Name one such person, and provide links. Chop-chop.

          •  Perhaps the comment was a bit (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gjohnsit, cslewis, 3goldens, theboz, qofdisks

            extreme.

            There are many here, primarily stalwart members of the Apologencia, who would gladly see Snowden "brought to justice", "stand trial" -- even being perfectly aware of the treatment which has been shown to occur under the OBAMA administration.

            So I suppose it's fair to say they think "justice" in this case is whatever Obama would like to do.  Oh they might fan themselves at the thought of an execution and "tsk tsk", but at the end of the day they Do Not Give A Shit because Obama is being embarrassed.

            Cruel and Unusual punishment?  Sure, why not?  

            Classify anything that is embarrassing or could help Snowden?  Why, certainly, that's what's called American Justice.

            The bottom line is there are many here who would gladly see Snowden fall into the clutches of the Obama led American Empire and then, whatever happens, is just fine and dandy by them.

            It's odd how, when you really look at things, there is a large segment of the population which simply follows like zombies whatever Partisan Flag they choose to march under, regardless of policy or facts.

            And that segment - why, what a coincidence:  Their the loudest ones denouncing Snowden.  

            In a nutshell, their idea of "Justice" or a "Fair Trial" has no merit - for their very definition of "Justice" or "Fair" is whatever is served up by Obama.  

            Hence, their position or thoughts on the matter, are simply driven by partisan bullshit and the need to defend Obama - a man - rather than any real principal.

            And that's why we don't have Change.  Because the 1% gave us a Rock Star, while the policies of the 1% didn't even slow down.

            Actually, on second thought, while they probably don't bestir themselves to wish he was killed (that's for Obama to decide!) , they certainly wouldn't have a problem with it.

            That much is rather obvious.

            The excuses for Obama's behavior have long since passed the point of predictability neccessary to qualify as an absurd production of Kabuki Theater.

            by Johnathan Ivan on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:28:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not extreme, just early (6+ / 0-)

              No one is calling for him to be killed right now, just like no one was calling for a universal domestic spy program.

               But once it was discovered there was a universal domestic spy program then there was a segment of people who rationalized it so they could defend it.
                 The same thing will happen if we assassinate Snowden.

              None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

              by gjohnsit on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:12:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know if you've considered this (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gjohnsit, sviscusi, Argyrios

              but we have millions of incarcerated people who know the "torture" Bradley Manning suffered is just one more piece of the game they're stuck playing.  Solitary confinement for 27 years not 11 months, and the horrific crime may be possession of drugs or waving a gun while black.  

              The paranoia factor in Snowden/Manning diaries seems really high for those of us who have experienced incarceration.  Naked in a paper gown with an open back in a cell with rough concrete benches for sitting and sleeping is county jail SOP if you annoy a guard.  

              Perspective.  

              I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

              by I love OCD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:26:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wrong when done to you or anyone else. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnathan Ivan, I love OCD, qofdisks

                We do not know how bad Bradley Manning had it in his prison. But we do know the devastating effects solitary confinement has on people. That is why I strongly support prison reform and have done so for more than 20 years. But Manning also deserves a fair trial. As does anyone accused of a drug crime. It is not either/or. It is both.

                •  No it isn't, but we seem utterly (0+ / 0-)

                  horrified that it happened to Manning and pretty damn casual about the fact that it's to tens of thousands of other people, in the US, without any pushback at all.

                  I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

                  by I love OCD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:36:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I get it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                I love OCD

                Although most people don't.

                None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

                by gjohnsit on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:24:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Quicklund, thought experiment: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gjohnsit, VeloDramatic, qofdisks

            Imagine this report: "CBS reports that Snowden was killed in a freak plane accident while traveling over Mediterranean waters.  Witnesses report seeing a streak of light, possibly a land to air missile from terrorists, strike the plane, and then a fireball explosion.  Rescue crews from the US have rushed to the scene."

            Paranoid scenario, perhaps, but it's a thought experiment.

            How would you rank your llevel of outrage and concern if you read that?

            We don't know, but I'll offer my guess:  Some people here would change their positions with regards to a lot of things.  Others would deny the incident really happened or has any significance.  Others would say that if the US got Snowden, it was probably a wise decision taken to protect us from something terrible.  That's how things often break down around here.

            I could be wrong.  It's a thought experiment.  But it still bothers me because it makes me wonder if it really did happen, some of the same people downplaying this would just blow it off anyway as having been necessary.  It makes me wonder if it's worth engaging.

          •  Back during the first big wikileaks release, (0+ / 0-)

            there was at least one person here (an old name we're familiar with, but I don't want to use it without finding a smoking gun) saying that we should assassinate Assange.

            I don't know if anybody here has called for Snowden's assassination yet.  

          •  Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gjohnsit, qofdisks

            Here you go. The president wasn't outraged at the killing of an unarmed 16 year old by a drone right? Cause he was "over there"?

            “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

            by Tool on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:32:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The USG did assassinate political dissidents (11+ / 0-)

          ...during Cointelpro. FBI Wesley Swearingen has a book in which he rather proudly recounts such assassinations.

          •  Liddy tried to assassinate Jack Anderson. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            enhydra lutris, qofdisks

            G. Gordon Liddy planned to assassinate journalist Jack Anderson, and even to assinate fellow CIA op Howard Hunt to silence him.

            http://mediamatters.org/...

            Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.)
            I suppose you could argue, "Well, that was then, this is now!"  But we wouldn't have known anything about this if it had stayed classified and if the details hadn't been dug out by force by the Watergate prosecutors and by the Church Committee.

            Clearly, we NEED another Church Committee to get all the dirty laundry out, just as we needed it in the 70s.  What we found then was horrific.  Like finding out what was under the bandage of a bad wound that had been allowed to fester too long.

      •  Many people here don't seem to think (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        that's possible at all, but I think that if it did happen, many of those same people would claim that it was justifiable for some new reason.

        When conversations get to that point, it's really hard to have anything rational.

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        qofdisks
        I hope and trust that our government is not in the business of murdering people who cross it.
        They're not in the business of it, they just do it, always have and still do.

        Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue

        9:DE@CJ @7 C6A62E65 :?;FC:6D 2?5 FDFCA2E:@?D[ 2== 92G:?8 :? 5:C64E @3;64E E96 6DE23=:D9>6?E @7 2? 23D@=FE6 %JC2??J @G6C E96D6 $E2E6D] %@ AC@G6 E9:D[ =6E u24ED 36 DF3>:EE65 E@ 2 42?5:5 H@C=5]

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:42:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Try reading the passage again. (5+ / 0-)

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:09:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There was a time (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      jiffypop, sviscusi, Argyrios
      Hidden by:
      qofdisks

      when outright threats against the U.S. government would not have been celebrated or defended here. Back when this was still a Democratic blog.

      Today, it's something different. Time will tell what that is.

      Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

      by MBNYC on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:11:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Two words: Russia and China. (13+ / 0-)

    Why not go directly to a country in South America where he wanted asylum?  Why go to China first? Then fly to Russia?

    "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:00:01 AM PDT

    •  Maybe he did not want to raise suspicion (28+ / 0-)

      Dont you think it would have looked suspicious if he had booked a flight from Hawaii to Venezuela?  But going to Hong Kong was not.  It is a major tourist destination.

    •  Because this is 1950 (12+ / 0-)

      And there are Commies hiding under every bed, so where can you run that they are not dominating the world?

      400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

      by koNko on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:26:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The difference between Asia and S America, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fogiv

        as per zenbasson's point, has much to do with geography and plate tectonics very little to do with governmental ideology.

        •  Did Snowden originally plant to go to S America? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead

          Or was it a later development?

          I think we know the answer to that and your entire line of reasoning here is a rhetorical straw man.

          But nice try, and hope you enjoyed your time looking up flight schedules, it was most informative.

          400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:33:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  He's not capable of realistic evaluation? (16+ / 0-)

      IMO he is overestimating the good will and high morals of everyone but the USG.

      Take the announcement by Greenwald.  It is protection against assassination by the US, but it is incentive for others who want to see this damaging stuff.  If you think the US is the only bad country, it makes sense.  Otherwise it's suicide.

      And reading DK tells me that's exactly what Snowden and Greenwald think.

      "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:45:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Two words: Thank God! (25+ / 0-)

      Thank God Snowden let us know what is going on.

      Thank God Greenwald had the courage to run with the story.

      Thank God the NSA toxic sludge is out of the bottle for all to see

      Thank God the media corrected yet another slanderous attempt to discredit the messengers.

      Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

      by Einsteinia on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:57:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't celebrate until we see the consequences (5+ / 0-)

        As I have pointed out elsewhere, loss of intelligence capability can lead to unforeseen consequences, even wars.

        I think the release of all of the material Snowden is likely to have had would be a Pandora's box: mostly bad, but some good. He says he loves his country and doesn't want to cause harm. I believe that, and I believe that is why the releases so far have been very limited and focused on abuses of intelligence gathering.

        •  I celebrate what has been revealed thus far (6+ / 0-)

          which we would never have believed had it not been for Snowden's acts of HUGE personal sacrifice and courage to do so.

          Because from what we have learned about secret courts, with secret laws, with secret tribunals, with secret verdicts, and secrets prisoners, is an indication that unchecked darkness for the ostensible purposes of "for our protection" has gone so far that it's mere existence is antithetical to our democracy ensured by our Constitution.

          Whatever nonsense the government is up to, we need to know if there is ever a chance to restore our democracy.

          Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

          by Einsteinia on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:36:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed on the "thus far" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Einsteinia, CroneWit

            I agree that so far what has been released have been abuses of intelligence rather than activities which are legitimately kept secret, and we can celebrate the exposure of abuses.

            I'm just saying this could go very wrong.  I don't know what Snowden. I can make an educated guess that it includes material that could result in an interruption of information about North Korea and therefore a heightened risk of war on the peninsula. War there would lead to a terrible loss of life. I would not celebrate that.

            •  Like every other problem right now unvarnished (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              eyeswideopen

              GREED seems to be driving the bus, which is not only threatening our democracy, but also -- as you point out -- our national security.

              "For Profit"
              "Subcontractors"
              = 2 problems

              1.  "For Profit"  Because, for example, when the NSA sought to use "for-profit" subcontractors whose cost-cutting measures included allowing even low level people like Snowden have so much potentially damaging info on our foreign policy, we have a formula for extortion -- in addition to ALL the other things wrong with it.

              2. "Subcontractors"  When you have non-military entities you have an opportunity for decisions to be made on a cost basis.  You have benevolent mercenaries who have so much extortion material that you would not only have a hard time ever ending a contract with the company, but also have a hard time releasing knowledgeable employees.

              Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

              by Einsteinia on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:28:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Regarding this: (0+ / 0-)
          I believe that is why the releases so far have been very limited and focused on abuses of intelligence gathering.
          I have not seen this asked or commented on here, but it is true that according to Snowden, an unspecified number of people have the info ready to be exposed if something happens to him.

          Who are these people? We don't know, don't have the slightest idea. How do we know they won't decide to release this info when they feel like it, regardless of Snowden being alive and well? Answer: We don't.

          I don't see Snowden as hero or traitor, much more complex than that. But the idea that nothing can go wrong here, is a bit naive.  There are now who knows how many people, with who knows what information. It's not just Snowden and Greenwald.

          This is a dangerous game, regardless of who justifies it and who can't.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:28:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The exposure to revelations is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gooderservice

            something that occurred BEFORE Snowden even came forth.

            This is an important reason Snowden said he had to do something.  He wondered why he, a lowly contractor, was able to spy on anyone anytime.  

            If there is concern about the "people" who Snowden has given some info to--it probably pales in comparison to ALL the "for rprofit" subcontractors (benevolent mercenaries)  behind the thin veil who know even more.

            So, it seems just a bit disingenuous to be freaked out about what Snowden can reveal when he is just one of a vast network of people who probably have the same--if not more-- information.

            The "for profit" empire is crumbling on the weight of its own greed.

            We can do better.  Let's fix the system by making the whole enterprise more transparent with proper checks and balances.

            Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

            by Einsteinia on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:59:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Who's freaked out? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Einsteinia, sviscusi

              I brought up a point you did not answer to. We don't know who has what information. And that's a fact. We don't know what the set up is for exposing that info should Snowden die.

              You can conflate this anyway you want to, but like I said, it's a dangerous game. And it is complex and we don't know a lot more than we know. We certainly don't know yet whether Snowden's desire to do no harm will work out that way in the end. It's part of the risk he took---which you can diefy or demonize him for, but you can't argue with.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:32:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're right we do not know the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                StellaRay, nota bene

                info that Snowden and ALL the snoop-complex people have

                but to fixate on just what Snowden and the people he entrusted is in fact a much smaller slice of the pie, so to speak

                what do info do they ALL have?  Who knows.

                I think right the clamp down on Snowden is more fear of what the OTHER Snowdens who dare to pull back the thin veil may have to share.

                Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

                by Einsteinia on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:38:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am not fixated on Snowden, (0+ / 0-)

                  but that is what this diary is about, so that is what I discussed. You can't have it both ways. If the story is not about Snowden, then it cannot be about Snowden either way. Not about him when you want to defend him, not about him when you want to trash him. You and I both know there have been plenty of diaries and comments about Snowden from both sides. Seems no one can resist.

                  Those that consider him a hero want to say so and do here often. That makes him part of the story. Those that consider him a traitor want to say so, and do here too. That makes him part of the story.  Those that consider him neither also want to say so and do so here often. That makes him part of the story.

                  Currently, no diary topic attracts more comments than Snowden, from BOTH sides. That's not the bad thing everyone here thinks it is---but is imo the predictable response to an incredible human interest story.  

                  And it is easier than discussing ways to repeal the Patriot Act. Which is as always, about politics, and all the discouraging and tough things that come with that.

                  I DO AGREE, with this:

                  what do info do they ALL have?  Who knows.
                  And that goes for the NSA, the corporations, and all the Edward Snowdens in the world. We are a people who are facing the good and the bad of the technological revolution, just as those who came before us faced the good and the bad of the industrial revolution.

                  And contrary to what some here think, imo, we are NOT the  most put upon and victimized people history has ever turned up. We must face our challenges as those before us had to do. We are not excused from that with any idea that we are the first to run into unfairness, inequable policies and the fight for right.

                  In a world where everything is shared on line, we must find a way to put some parameters on that. What is open and fair game? What is inappropriate use of gathered knowledge? What do we need to do to be safe, and what is several steps over this line? Why do we excuse the corporations for their invasion of our privacy, but jump all over the NSA for it?

                  These are very hard questions, and not as black and white as some here want to make them. Black and white is easy. The realities are much harder, and always have been.

                  "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                  by StellaRay on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:10:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This diary is NOT about Snowden (0+ / 0-)

                    As the diarist, I think I know why I wrote it.

                    As I stated, "It [the situation] is what it is. What is the best way for the US to get out of this without damaging itself? It does not look like that it will be able to accomplish that by threats, bullying, or murder. So, what should our government do?"

                    That is what the diary is about. Greenwald's statements are interesting only insofar as they reveal the existence of a deadman's switch, meaning that either (a) selected material not injurious to legitimate US interests is released or (b) all information, including information injurious to legitimate US interests is released. So, how do we avoid injuring this country?  

                    Perhaps I could have titled the diary better, but I was in a hurry.

                    •  Well, Ok, if you say so. (0+ / 0-)

                      But yeah, perhaps you could have titled your diary better---"Greenwald refutes reports on NSA/Snowden"--- if you didn't want to talk about Snowden, or Greenwald.  And perhaps you could have altered the substance of your diary as well. As far as I can see it is primarily dedicated to arguing w/yesterday's pie fight, although I do not doubt your good intentions. And sorry, but I'm not buying you were in too much of a hurry to do better with the focus of this diary, and the title, if you truly wanted if OFF Snowden and Greenwald.

                      And the thing is, I don't care, nor am I critical of you wanting to set the record straight, as you see it, regarding Snowden and Greenwald.  But, I am VERY tired of people justifying THEIR focus on Greenwald and Snowden, while they tell everyone else THEIR focus on Greenwald and Snowden is wrong.

                      From where I sit, one who reads more on this than comments, this is just silly, on both sides. There is no reason to believe everyone wouldn't be interested in the "protagonist" of this story, and clearly by comment count, everyone here is.

                      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                      by StellaRay on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:08:59 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I do in fact say so (0+ / 0-)

                        I think you will find that my comments are respectful and on point. This diary is certainly not a response to any of a number of pie fights that took place yesterday or any day, but the reporting of a hinge event.

                        On one minor matter, you state that " I'm not buying you were in too much of a hurry to do better with the focus of this diary..."

                        And yet I stated in the header, "I have to leave this diary incomplete..." So you disbelieve something that was plainly stated at the outset. Your privilege, of course.    

                        On substance, it is, as you indicate, impossible to strictly separate the people engaged in an event from the event. But focusing on the personalities literally makes it ad hominem debate. Focusing on personalities is what makes for pie fights.  

                        There's much more to the NSA revelations than the personalities. This is potentially a hinge event. It's a moment when the United States is losing its power because it has forgotten the most important lesson of all: power is not derived from compelling others to do one's bidding, but by persuading them that they are serving their own interests when they are serving one's own.

                        And so this question of the deadman's switch (which, I should note, Snowden has been signaling all along) becomes the ultimate demonstration of defiance: one man prevailing against the Empire. And why is he succeeding so far? Because he understands power.

                        Julian Assange has been teaching an important and very radical message that almost no one seems to get. The message is that the reason that the world has so many problems is that too few people have information. Once information is distributed, then things will sort themselves out naturally. He believes that knowledge is power. Distribute knowledge and you will have distributed power.

                        Whether or not that is true is an argument for another day. But look at how Snowden has applied that lesson. He tells the people of Hong Kong how they have been wiretapped and ::boom:: they give him a safe house and conduct to Russia. In Russia, he tells Latin America how they have been wiretapped and (aided by an error by the US which has wrong information that Snowden's on Morales' plane) suddenly Snowden has offers of asylum. Blocked by Europeans from taking offers of asylum, he tells Germans and French how they have been wiretapped. Suddenly the dynamic shifts in those countries, such that the Europeans are demanding explanations and promises of better behavior from the US and movements in those countries are challenging the decision to block Snowden's travel. It's a very sophisticated strategy that seems to be based on the theory that if people have accurate information, they will make decisions in their own best interests, and problems will be resolved.  

                        And then there's the deadman's switch. Snowden tells the US that if he dies, US power will be disrupted by the release of information. Again, the same lesson as Assange seems to have been teaching.

                        These are really, really big events having to do with the decline of American power and the rise of an information-based resistance to centralized governments of all kinds. Set beside this very large story, the personality stuff is just stale gossip.

                        •  Message (0+ / 0-)
                          ulian Assange has been teaching an important and very radical message that almost no one seems to get.
                          That you can run from rape charges and people will be more than happy to overlook that and treat you as a hero?
                          •  Rei, you seem obsessed with this (0+ / 0-)

                            Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.
                            Ben Franklin was a sex addict.
                            FDR was a philanderer.
                            JFK was a sex addict.

                            Now, I am not comparing Snowden to any of these men. My point is that unless one can discuss the ideas of a person without going ad hominem, then one is not really having an adult conversation.

                            What you are doing is simply smearing Assange. You are not somehow bringing me to account, because I don't regard Assange as a hero. I don't even think his idea that information is power is correct.

                            What you're doing here is disgusting and unworthy of any Kossack.

                            Talk issues or don't talk at all.

                          •  Right. Because (0+ / 0-)

                            "being a sex addict" and "being a philanderer" are the same as raping someone?  Really?

                            My point is that unless one can discuss the ideas of a person without going ad hominem, then one is not really having an adult conversation.
                            And you're going right past my point, which is that people are making a guy running from rape charges into a spokesman of a movement and playing down, ignoring, or excusing the rape charges, even making them out to be a conspiracy, all because they like his involvement in Wikileaks.  Which is incredibly offensive to me.
                            Talk issues or don't talk at all.
                            Oh, I'm sorry, rape is no longer an issue.  Got it.

                            The simple fact is that if Assange was a football star instead of the founder of Wikileaks, everyone on DK and their mother would be decrying him.  If someone went and said, "Hey, just let him play football, stop going ad hominem and bringing up the rape issue", they'd get driven off the site on a rail.  But because he's "one of us", suddenly, oh no, it's taboo to bring up the rape issue.  No, we're supposed to just ignore it and go on treating him as some leader of a movement.

                            Well, sorry if I don't bite on that notion.

                          •  To put it another way: (0+ / 0-)
                            My point is that unless one can discuss the ideas of a person without going ad hominem, then one is not really having an adult conversation.
                            Geez, can't we just have an adult conversation about how great Roman Polanski's film ideas are without that pesky child rape issue coming up?

                            Geez, can't we just have an adult conversation about how great of a musician Charles Manson was without that pesky murder issue coming up?

                            Geez, can't we discuss how good of a job Mussolini did the rail system without all of that waging-war-with-the-nazis stuff coming up?

                            Really, is this how you handle most such conversations?  Or just those when the speaker is someone you like?

                            People who do horrible things should not be given a free pass to just walk away from them.

                          •  You've invoked Godwin's law (0+ / 0-)

                            Anyone who brings up Mussolini when discussing (alleged) acts that would not even be charged as rape if they occurred in any country other than Sweden has gone off the edge.

                            Sure, talk about Assange's character or lack thereof. Just not on a thread about NSA surveillance.  

                          •  First off, (0+ / 0-)

                            Godwin's law is about Hitler.  Secondly, Godwin's law is about comparing someone to Hitler.  

                            When I say "Assange is like Hitler", feel free to Godwin me.  Which will happen in, approximately, never.

                            Anyone who brings up Mussolini when discussing (alleged) acts

                            For which a court of law found probable cause after reviewing all of the evidence and hearing testimony from his attorney, another court upheld the lower court's ruling, and three courts in Britain, up to and including the Supreme Court, found no fault with the process.  And secondly, bringing up the fact that he hasn't been convicted when he's on the run from the law is like saying in the early 1930s, "Hey, stop talking bad about Bonnie and Clyde, they haven't been tried yet!"

                             

                            that would not even be charged as rape if they occurred in any country other than Sweden has gone off the edge.
                            False.  And the fact that you think that it's legal to F* a sleeping girl to work around her repeated and explicit refusal to consent to your preferred form of sexual activity - what he's charged with - is, honestly, pretty offensive.  Its illegal in almost every country on Earth.  All three levels of the British court system, up to and including the Supreme Court, found that every one of his charges would be an equivalent charge in the UK ("double criminality).

                            Honestly, he's damned lucky this was in Sweden, where rape laws are so lax.  He'd be facing a 20 year sentence for that charge alone in DC, for example.

                            And yes, Sweden has some of the most lax rape laws in the developed world; it's often been considered scandalous that they haven't been able to toughen them.  For example, when a few years back a 15 year old was gang-raped by three men, only the first could be charged because, after having been beaten into submission by the first, she didn't resist or register protest with the latter two.

                            But even in Sweden it's illegal to F* a sleeping girl.

                            Sure, talk about Assange's character or lack thereof. Just not on a thread about NSA surveillance.  
                            I'll oppose a rape fugitive being made a spokesman of any cause whenever it happens, thank you very much.
                        •  I agree w/much you say here. (0+ / 0-)

                          But, I do continue to think that your view that "the personality stuff is just stale gossip," is both naieve and stubborn.

                          You have repeatedly rejected my premise that this is a story, and Snoweden is the protagonist. You have repeatedly, imo, asked humans to not be human, and not care about the guy who ran into a burning building to save a baby, or conversely, not care about the guy who gave up state secrets. Ain't going to happen.

                          And again, I find your protests a bit much considering the diary you wrote, which again I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH. It's you that has a problem getting caught with Snowden and Greenwald as your lead, and yes, as much of your substance.

                          Part of the problem here IS how we look at folks like Snoweden. It's a huge part of the conversation, and your stubborn denial of that, except when you want to defend it, is not going to change that.

                          There is no reason why BOTH Snowden and his revelations cannot be discussed, and have been discussed. But whistle blower or traitor, however you see it, the protagonist of the story WILL be of interest. And imo, it's of interest to  you  too, when it suits you.

                          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

                          by StellaRay on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 07:40:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  Explanation (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            StellaRay, CroneWit

            While this is the realm of speculation, it seems likely that:

            1. The information is encrypted.
            2. There are multiple keys required for decryption.
            3. The multiple keys are not in any one person's hands.
            4. The information is under some kind of clock, such that if it isn't otherwise instructed at a given interval, it becomes possible to decrypt.

            A good guess is that there are two keys. Snowden holds one key, and a number of journalists hold the other. Information cannot be released without joint approval...unless the clock runs out.  

            •  I think this is (0+ / 0-)

              very reasonable speculation and I hope it's all true, as this would certainly be the most responsible way to negotiate very risky business. But then we just don't know, do we?

              My fervent hope is that the risks taken will result in Americans re-thinking and re-legislating the Patriot act and that it won't blow up in anyone's face other than that. The recent poll presented in your diary is good news to me.

              Inherent in all the risks taken by Snowden, is the one we've been dealing with for weeks here. Which is that his actions would become at least part of the story, if not the biggest part of the story, that his history and every word and move would be scrutinized, that there would be those who would see him as a hero, and others as a traitor. If you told me this was story was going to happen, I'd have predicted all of the above, and I think most people would.

              I find some people's insistence that he not be part of the story, baffling and of course, highly inconsistent. If he's a hero, then it's like expecting that  the guy who ran into a burning house to save a baby won't be part of the story. If he's a traitor it's like expecting that wouldn't be part of the story.  And if the truth is somewhere inbetween, it's even a better story and sure to be poked at from all angles, as it has been here.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:53:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  yes, exactly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CharlesII
            There are now who knows how many people, with who knows what information.
            Some unknown number of persons, well into the thousands, have the same access Snowden did as contractors. Every single one of these people is just as much of a risk as Snowden or any of his co-conspirators.

            People seem to keep losing track of this, in the anti-whistlebower moral panic: the NSA operation is fucking enormous and needed to be kept top secret. Yet there are thousands of people who know about it. If it wasn't Snowden, it would have been somebody else, eventually. It was entirely too big to be kept hidden away forever.

            Out! out! damned spot....

            Why do you hate America?

            by nota bene on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:53:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  is/was hawaii to hongkong easier? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit

      Don Benedetto was murdered.-IgnazioSilone(BreadAndWine)

      by renzo capetti on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:25:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At the time (0+ / 0-)

      He didn't have a clear sense of which country would grant asylum.  Thus, he went to two countries that are not likely to ship him to the US right away.  Now, if it were you, where would you go?

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:27:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why not fly to Iceland or Norway... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FiredUpInCA

      after flying from the continental US? These are countries that are champions of human rights,and I would imagine that traveling to them would not have raised any red flags.

      They aren't offering Snowden asylum now because they have laws that require applicants to actually be there.

      One thing is clear. Snowden shouldn't have booked his adventure with the Wikileaks travel agency. I don't know if they encouraged him to go to Hong Kong, but they are certainly the ones behind the Moscow fiasco. Assange screwed his protege.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

      by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:41:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Iceland and Norway would be sympathetic (0+ / 0-)

        But they would also send him over.  We're law-abiding countries.  I'd think Iceland would be more likely to not send him (we're better at finding loopholes, IMHO  ;)  ), but it's still highly likely he'd get sent.

        Now, Sweden would be a different matter.  Due to a clause in their extradition treaty, it's illegal to deport someone for intelligence crimes from Sweden.  The US couldn't even get Edward Lee Howard, who was a CIA defector who released info on all the agents he could get his hands on straight to the Soviets.  And Carl Bildt (the current foreign minister) was prime minister at the time.  Sweden has been a refuge for hundreds of US defectors and has never sent one over.

        Of course, Assange running from rape charges in Sweden probably convinced Snowden not to go there, even though it'd probably be his best bet for refuge in a country with a high standard of living and which wouldn't make him a total hypocrite (aka, Russia, China, Venezuela, etc all have much worse standards of spying and illegal use of the data collected than the US).

    •  Tha question has been answered already. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens

      REPEATEDLY.

      You're engaging in cheap rhetoric at this point.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:59:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But it's not about Snowden and Greenwald. (9+ / 0-)

    Or something.

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

    by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:06:16 AM PDT

  •  Snowden is a Traitor -has made Americans less safe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2

    For months, he planned his defection and Great Escape.....
    the boy ain't too bright.

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:11:22 AM PDT

      •  Ad hom: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MartyM

        ad ho·mi·nem  
        ˈad ˈhämənəm
        Adverb

            (of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
            Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

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

        by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:37:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hello Dubya (9+ / 0-)

      How's your retirement coming along?

    •  Snowden got NSA secrets out of the country. (16+ / 0-)

      You are posting anonymous insults on the internet

      Dollars to donuts, he's brighter than you, dude
      .

    •  Why? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund, WinSmith, CharlesII, Kombema, Dumbo

      Why this insistence he is either a traitor or a hero?

      Is it really all that clear at this point? Maybe he's just a guy who really stepped in it, for good or for bad.

      •  A hero does something risky to himself (10+ / 0-)

        for the benefit of others. Why do this at all? Are we better of to be aware of the extent to which we are under surveillance? Yes. =hero.

        •  I once dated a guy (7+ / 0-)

          Who saved a girl from drowning.

          He was a complete weasel, but his actions in that instance were heroic.

          Whether that applies here, I don't think we yet know.

          As for surveillance, if you worked where I work, you'd understand why the whole surveillance thing doesn't get my heart rate up. My every action is under scrutiny, thanks to some idiot Homeland Security Wannabes. And, no, I don't approve of it. I'm just not yet prepared to see Snowden as the real hero in all of this. In fact, I' don't believe for a second the real hero, when it comes to surveillance, has even come to light.

          And, in the meantime, I find the hero-traitor battles premature, at best.

          •  So Snowden is narrowly a hero (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, gooderservice, 3goldens

            because he technically meets the requirements of risking himself for others but he may end up being a weasel in other ways? Well so far so good. Hero: +1, Weasel 0.

            Do you suggest that it remains to be seen whether the rest of us will benefit from now knowing the extent to which we are under surveillance? He didn't benefit you because you already knew. But I think this knowledge benefits me. And he took a big risk to give me that information.

            Why is there such a big difference in the way European governments implement privacy protections and the way the US does it?  If it doesn't matter? I think the difference is that Europeans had the experience of living under totalitarian regimes. Maybe there will be a backlash and a pulling back of privacy invasion as a result of these revelations. And as for Snowden's motivations? He intended that if you listen to what he said. I would love to see what other heroes there might be.

          •  I might even agree with that. (0+ / 0-)

            Would have to think about it more.

            •  Human beings are imperfect (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dumbo

              therefore most of us are capable of being both "heroes" (in specific circumstances) and scumbags (at other times).

              But the Purity Patrol insists that anyone whose motives aren't 99 44/100% Pure aren't "worthy" of our concern. Especially if that attitude happens to coincide with their 100% support of a President who is a LONG LONG way from 99 44/100% perfect....

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

              by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:48:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  A study conducted a few years ago (0+ / 0-)

          Found that the single most motivating factor for most young people is FAME, beyond money, sex, or anything else.

          "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

          by eyeswideopen on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:14:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. Too early to say. (3+ / 0-)

        There have been some good consequences of the information released so far. There could be some very bad consequences if the full material gets dumped. We need to suspend judgement until we see what happens.

      •  I think he's crossing over into another (0+ / 0-)

        category lately.  Martyr.  And it takes two to tango for that to happen.  The Moralies incident may be the defining factor in how people end up judging Snowden, which isn't really the best way to evaluate him, but it will still remain a defining moment in how far we now know the US will go to silence critics.

    •  I don't think he's a traitor in the legal sense (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WinSmith, Quicklund

      of the word, but I do see why many people are upset that he cut and run.

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

      by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:37:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you know that many whistleblowers... (19+ / 0-)

        Do you know that many whistleblowers, people like Thomas Drake and Daniel Ellsberg, have said that he had no choice, that the US government's response to whistleblowers in recent years makes it absurd for anyone to stay around?  

        William Binney, an NSA whistleblower who is an amputee,had a gun pointed at his head while he was in the shower. While his son was watching.  

        Maybe have just a bit of empathy?  

        •  Thanks for link on threats to whistleblowers nt (6+ / 0-)
          •  Here's 'due process' for whistleblowers (11+ / 0-)

            in the Surveillance State of America:  William Binney.

            http://www.democracynow.org/...

            . . . William Binney worked for almost 40 years at the secretive National Security Agency (NSA), the U.S. spy agency that dwarfs the CIA. As technical director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, Binney told me, he was tasked to “see how we could solve collection, analysis and reporting on military and geopolitical issues all around the world, every country in the world.” Throughout the 1990s, the NSA developed a massive eavesdropping system code-named ThinThread, which, Binney says, maintained crucial protections on the privacy of U.S. citizens demanded by the U.S. Constitution. He recalled, “After 9/11, all the wraps came off for NSA,” as massive domestic spying became the norm. He resigned on Oct. 31, 2001.

            Along with several other NSA officials, Binney reported his concerns to Congress and to the Department of Defense. Then, in 2007, as then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was being questioned on Capitol Hill about the very domestic spying to which Binney objected, a dozen FBI agents charged into his house, guns drawn. They forced aside his son and found Binney, a diabetic amputee, in the shower. They pointed their guns at his head, then led him to his back porch and interrogated him.

            Three others were raided that morning. Binney called the FBI raid “retribution and intimidation so we didn’t go to the Judiciary Committee in the Senate and tell them, ‘Well, here’s what Gonzales didn’t tell you, OK.’ ” Binney was never charged with any crime.

            Binney's concern, and Thomas Drakes, was that the current surveillance system (which replaced ThinThread) would be hugely expensive and would violate the Fourth Amendment.  This is the complaint that both Binney and Drake made 'through channels'.

            2007 was the time when Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping was being investigated.  In January of 2007, Gonzales told reporters that (as part of the government's 'fix' for Warrantless Wiretapping) the FISA court (which had not been involved up until then) would be introducing 'innovative orders' that would bring the Warrantless Wiretapping under the purview of the law.  (These would be the much-vaunted 'FISA court warrants' we now know about.)  The rest of the 'fix' was to give the telecoms retroactive immunity for the wiretapping.

            An NSA retiree, a diabetic amputee, dragged naked from the shower in front of his son by armed FBI agents who 'interrogated' him while three other citizens were also raided.  While Alberto Goanzales lied to Congress.

            Is this the 'America' that still makes my heart swell with loving pride when I hear God bless America, land that I love?'  Or is this a gangster, rogue state that must be feared because it will go to any lengths to protect its secret surveillance system?

            It is this 'rogue state', not the 'America' I love, that should pray every day that Snowden stays alive and well.  Because it is this 'rogue state' that will be harmed if that dead man's switch is used.

        •  they don't care (0+ / 0-)

          this stuff just bounces off the people who are the angriest about Snowden/Greenwald. They aren't going to have empathy for "lawbreakers."

          Ellsberg is plusgood, until he came out in support of Snowden, at which point he automatically became plusbad, at least for the time being. Down the Memory Hole he goes....

          Why do you hate America?

          by nota bene on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:08:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Listen to the interview of Assange on this (7+ / 0-)

        (from George Stephanapoulis' interview of Assange June 30):
        But look, let's pull back a bit. Why is it that Mr. Snowden is not in the United States? He should feel that he should be afforded justice in the United States. But his situation is very similar to a situation that I face and that my staff face where we have been sucked into a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, that's where the charges for Mr. Snowden came from, Alexandria, Virginia.

        What do we know about that district? It's six kilometers from the center of Washington, D.C., the jury pool is made up of the CIA, Pentagon, et cetera. In the legal community in the United States, it's known as the rocket docket because of the lack of scrutiny procedures have there. There's a 99 percent chance that -- a 99.97 percent chance that if you're a target of the grand jury you'll be indicted. And a 99 percent that if you're indicted by a grand jury you will be convicted.

        •  You're assuming Snowden would even SEE a jury (9+ / 0-)

          trial. More likely he'd rot in some Army brig for the rest of his life, or be subject to a rigged Army kangaroo court trial, just like the Guantanamo defendants.

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

          by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:55:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And his holy ass (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi

            Is more important than our country. Right. I respect Manning because he was willing to take the consequences. Running like a rat to some of the worst abusers of human rights and lack of democracy doesn't endear this fool kid to me.

            "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

            by eyeswideopen on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:09:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I really dislike these modifiers (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              YucatanMan, 3goldens, Dumbo

              "He ran".  OK fine.

              "He cut and ran" (from an earlier comment)  No.  The "cut" is pure rhetorical flourish, to make it sound worse than "ran".  No evidence that he cut.  Same sort of rhetoric used against those who suggested we leave Vietnam/Iran etc.  "Oh, you want us to just cut and run".

              "Running like a rat" (from your comment) No.  There is absolutely no evidence that he ran like a rat.  Again, pure rhetorical flourish designed to make "run" look bad.

              And I don't think that Hong Kong is among the worst abusers of human rights. Somalia?  North Korea? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria?  Especially when you look at his choices, which have to be places a bit suspicious of the US to begin with.  

              Other pieces of negative rhetoric:  "Holy ass".  Sounds just like the folks who kept saying that Obama thinks he's Messiah.  Nobody ever suggested that Snowden thought that he, or his ass, were holy.  Just negative polemical rhetoric again.  "More important than his country".  Nobody ever suggested that Snowden thought he (or "his holy ass") was more important than the country.  Makes a rhetorical implication that Snowden was harming his country.  That's what despots always say -- can't expose these secrets or can't publish these criticisms because of "national security" or because "it will damage the country" when really what it will do is expose illegal or immoral acts that the despot would prefer to keep hidden.  Ironically, this is the same talk used by these "worst abusers of human rights" that you criticize elsewhere.

              My view:  same as Obama's vis-a-vis Bush administration -- let's look forwards not backwards.  Snowden himself is old news.  Let him have his asylum and move forward to a public dialog of how much spying and how much secrecy and how much punishment for revealing secrets we really want.  Forget over-the-top rhetoric like "running like a rat".

              •  China owns Hong Kong (0+ / 0-)

                China -- Tibet -- students, tanks -- look up China's human rights and democratic history; ditto for Russia, where they like to murder journalists and somehow never get caught. North Korea only exists because China helps them. Russia helps Syria and Iran. Both have blocked numerous attempts at resolution of many, many brutal conflicts over the decades. Some nations are just more blatant than others.

                Somalia -- funny you should mention it! It is precisely what the libertarian anarchist seems to desire -- a weak government unable to protect or provide services to its people or to control the thieves and psychopaths within its borders.

                So Greenwald and Snowden, libertarians both, want to bring down our government, eh? And I'm supposed to cheer? I think not.

                If this kid really wanted to help the US and its people, he would have gone about it in a different way with less willful risk to our government and our people.

                I have absolutely no respect for these guys. Looks like youthful self-aggrandizement at the expense of an entire nation to me.

                "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

                by eyeswideopen on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's a good thing that Snowden didn't go to Gitmo, (0+ / 0-)

                  Because then they would accuse him of "cutting and running to Cuba."  

                •  Earth to eyseswideopen: the Cold War is OVER. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  enhydra lutris

                  As for your gibberish equating Hong Kong to China, it's just that - gibberish - and exposes your EXTREME ignorance to public view.

                  Hong Kong was British for ~100 years. The Chinese government wanted it back. It took a decade or so of negotiations, and some special concessions - like quasi-independence under essentially nominal Chinese sovereignty - to arrange that.

                  Hong Kong sends its own delegations to the Olympics.
                  Hong Kong is capitalist, not communist, and the Chinese government agreed to keep hands off until 2047.
                  Hong Kong can and does conduct its own diplomatic negotiations.

                  Do a little research before you start spewing.

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

                  by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:58:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My dear, I was there. (0+ / 0-)

                    Some of us actually lived through a whole hell of a lot of history. Some of us have dear friends from Hong Kong who bailed as soon as China took it back.

                    And some just read about it.

                    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

                    by eyeswideopen on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:45:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Third Parties (0+ / 0-)

                    Perhaps you will have an easier time believing those who make it their life's work to gauge the quality of governments around the world.

                    For example, corruption

                    or press freedom:

                    or maybe human rights

                    You will note that we in the USofA are actually among the better countries on all counts. Believe me, I too was once young and unsubtle in my thinking. Age brings nuance and greater understanding. And the fanaticism that often afflicts the young may fall away, replaced by something a little clearer.

                    I am not in the least bit a cold warrior or any species of right winger -- I've never in my life voted for a Repuglican. But, I know that psychopaths inhabit the earth in largely constant numbers everywhere on the planet, and they tend to seize power because that is what they live for. IMHO, the best political system is one in which psychopaths can never gain power. Genetic tests for candidates!  

                    You see, I believe that the GOP stands for "Greedy Old Psychopaths" and I will take the imperfect Dems over these folks any day, because lack of compassion defines the GOP and I go with those with at least some compassion. I believe that these libertarian fools are simply trying to gain fame and, in Greenwald's case, fortune, and bring down Obama, one of the best presidents I've seen in my very long life.

                    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

                    by eyeswideopen on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:27:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  We're Number 19! We're number 19! (0+ / 0-)

                      Yes, it's very exciting to be ranked as 19th in corruption, below even Hong Kong. Thirty second in press freedom! Below Slovakia and Ghana.  And, unlike most civilized countries, we have political prisoners as designated by Amnesty International... which has, if I recall, also condemned us for Guantanamo and torture in general. We used to be a leader. Now we look to Suriname for our cues on how to better ourselves.

                      Do you even read your own links?  

                      •  Like I say (0+ / 0-)

                        We're imperfect, obviously. Always have been, always will be. You actually expected to be best in everything?

                        You cannot deny that our record in all three areas exceeds that of the nations Snowden has thus far run to for shelter.

                        As I said, psychopaths exist in about equal numbers everywhere. They are the problem, not 300 requests to look at stored phone records to track terrorists and skin heads (psychopaths) by the NSA.

                        BTW, I spent my young years fighting against US's lethal stupidity and arrogance WRT Vietnam and Central America, so you can't tell me anything I don't already know about this country. But damn it, this is not one of those periods when we are really, really stepping in it in a most lethal fashion. Whatever Obama's doing is working brilliantly. We are at relative peace and that for me is good, and Obama's restraint is admirable. Long may he keep it that way. Long may the Dems keep the presidency and the Senate at least. I like not having to go out and demonstrate against wars all the fucking time.

                        You can thank psychopath Bush for Guantanamo. If you'd like more of the same, keep attacking Obama over nothing.

                        "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

                        by eyeswideopen on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 09:13:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The Potemkin press reporting a Potemkin peace (0+ / 0-)

                          As for the relative freedom of Venezuela and Ecuador, I suggest you look at this article. The fact that Americans believe that the press in Ecuador and Venezuela is less free than the American press is a testament to how regimented our own press is.

                          And that is not to defend the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador, neither of which is especially friendly to a free press. It's simply that Americans have been systematically--and successfully-- lied to about what is going on there by our press and by NGOs paid in part by the US government.  

                          As for the NSA, it is not your unsourced allegation of 300 requests to wiretap Skinheads that I am worried about. It is about a facility in Bluffdale, Utah with the capacity to store the contents of every phone call, e-mail, web post, FAX, Tweet, etc. for every human being on the planet for the next hundred years. This goes way beyond the capability that the Stasi ever had, and is an invitation to abuse.

                          As for wars, you might want to read Nick Turse. We have 60,000 men in Special Ops (many more if you count contractors) deployed on any given day in 70 countries, engaged in 120 wars. The American people are completely unaware of the wars we are waging in 118 of the countries. And that's thanks to a press that reports what the government wants it to report.

                          Now, that doesn't make us monsters, just a Great Power playing at Empire. Some of those conflicts might even be worth fighting. But to the extent that there is peace, it is a Potemkin peace. To the extent there is a press, it is a Potemkin press.

                          •  Since there is no way (0+ / 0-)

                            ...to control this experiment in existence without building a computer model the size of the Universe, it may just be the best we can do. If you live long enough, you realize just how perfectly imperfect the whole thing is, including you. We have no idea what manner of chit might hit the wall without whatever they are doing at the NSA. Lifeforms tend not to waste energy on fruitless endeavors, as resources are limited.

                            300 requests to look at stored data (it vanishes if not stored, and timing is important, especially after the fact of an attack or threat is made) comes from the White House, via Huffpost today or yesterday. Here's a BBC link.

                            I like Ecuador very much, and have even thought of moving there myself. I liked Chavez in Venezuela. Knowing the bloody history of US involvements in Latin America and having worked for a decade to oppose it, I have no doubt that there is still great animus towards us left over from Reagan's accursed reign.

                            Venezuela shut down something like 60 media outlets (radio, I believe) due to $40 million being funneled to lying oppo groups under Bush. Completely understandable. Imagine if Obama had done that here, however.

                            Still, I seriously doubt their press is a whole hell of a lot better than ours, human nature being what it is. At least we have the Nation and the like, right? Our press somehow made you aware of what you wanted me to read. The truth value of all of it is difficult to discern. I don't automatically assume my side is correct (or even sane) about everything. I see a lot of hyperventilation all the time by folks, left and right (especially the latter) who assume someone, somewhere is so powerful they can manipulate the entire world. Fat chance. We are rather stupid monkeys bumping around in the dark.  

                            I feel secure in the knowledge that the government cannot possibly hire enough humans to sift through more than very targeted data. There's an old trick in litigation that, if you don't want your opponent to know what you know, you simply overwhelm them with data. Boxes and boxes of paperwork. I seem to recall they used that technique during the Iran Contra hearings. Couldn't possibly sort through it. Ditto for all of our perfectly boring communications. No one has time or energy to wade through all that crap -- there is not life enough, even with banks of computers searching for keywords. AI just isn't there yet. It would even overwhelm crowdsourcing. So they have to use it only for targeted searches -- nothing else is feasible. Or legal. Believe me, if it was illegal, the right wing would be all over it like a blanket. Any excuse to impeach.

                            I just wish the NSA could be tracking every single white supremacist in this bloody country. They are the lowest forms of life. How many assholes are out there trying to kill my president, among others? Sorry, just my take.

                            "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

                            by eyeswideopen on Sun Jul 21, 2013 at 09:08:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Congress is already moving to limit NSA (0+ / 0-)

                            You're"secure in the knowledge" that if the NSA has all the electronic communications, individuals can't be targeted.

                            But Congress is already moving to limit the NSA. David Lightman and Ben Kamisar, KC Star/McClatchy:

                            “I think the administration and the NSA has had six weeks to answer questions and haven’t done a good job at it,” said Rep. Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat.
                            ...
                            Rep. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, is trying to add a provision to the military spending bill, due for House consideration this week, that would end the NSA’s mass collection of Americans’ telephone records.
                            ...
                             Larsen is pushing a measure to require tech companies to publicly disclose the type and volume of data they have to turn over to the federal government.
                            ...
                            Other bipartisan efforts are in the works. Thirty-two House members, led by Amash and Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, are backing a plan to restrict Washington’s ability to collect data under the Patriot Act on people not connected to an ongoing investigation. Also active is a push to require the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which rules on government surveillance requests, to be more transparent.
                            ...
                            Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California is leading an effort along with Rep. Ted Poe, a Texas Republican, to have the court’s judges nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
                            ...
                            Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, recalled that when he chaired the House Judiciary Committee in 2006, “I was not aware of any dragnet collection of phone records when the Patriot Act was reauthorized.” If he had, he said, “I would have publicly opposed such abuse.”
                            ...
                            Conyers noted that the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. “You’ve already violated the law as far as I am concerned,” Conyers said.
                            Bipartisan support for restricting the actions of the NSA in a Congress that can't agree on anything else?

                            Maybe you shouldn't be feeling quite as secure.

        •  Rocket Docket (0+ / 0-)

          The court in VA is known as the Rocket Docket, because they move cases through quickly with many of them getting tossed out through summary judgement without ever getting to trial.  

          Shine like the humblest star.

          by ljm on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:09:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, the notion that everyone who lives (0+ / 0-)

            in that area, one of the US's largest population centers, is a Pentagon or CIA employee, to such a degree that they couldn't be kicked out by the defense pool jury selection, is just laughable.

            The DC area is, statistically, educated and very liberal, the sort of demographics that tend to favor someone like Snowden.  He'd rue the day if he had to be tried by some uneducated and highly conservative jury.

      •  So you would have had him stay (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens

        and submit to torture as Manning did?  

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:52:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Channeling Dick Cheney very well! (10+ / 0-)

      "has made America less safe".

      Where have I heard that one?

      The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

      by Beelzebud on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:09:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  YAWN - been said before (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris

      But you forgot the "gave secrets to Russia and China" drivel that usually comes with this.

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:22:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Reuters hasn't misquoted Greenwald" (8+ / 0-)

    thanks for that.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:23:18 AM PDT

    •  They certainly (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, CroneWit, gooderservice, 3goldens, ask

      took the quote from Greenwalds speech out of context and declared it was a threat to the US. The only threat I see comes from living in this new US where the lawless bloody Spooks are out of control and our 'lawmakers' have reinterpreted and over ridden our basic rule of law. The Patriot Act with the secret sauce, NDAA ,the bogus AUFM combined with the spook agencies global spying and profiling pre-criminals, is way more threatening to the US then releasing the docs that show the extent of our governments criminality.

      This program and the destruction of our civil and human rights using this totally bogus endless GWOT are what threatens the US. Misplaced fear abounds along with demonizing any other nation states and anyone anywhere who dares to threaten the perceived interests of the US. This is not what democracy or even a nation of laws looks like. The world is a battlefield says our new law. How is that not threatening to the US and our national interests? Who want's to live in this nightmare world?      

      The Law is King
      Where's my Habeas Corpus?      

      •  How can it not be a threat? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eyeswideopen, USArmyParatrooper

        There is no other interpretation. Greenwald is trying mightily to sugarcoat it, but even he can't unshit the bed now.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

        by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:50:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not a threat (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, ask

          to anybody except those in power who are abusing their power and unconstitutionally stripping away our civil and human rights and using the oldest trick on the books, fear of other. The people who run our government's anti-democratic secret Orwellian policy and global NWO need to feel threatened. Secret laws and a shadow government that operates in the dark would feel threatened by having the scope of their evil machinations exposed.

          Not me I'm an American and I  think this new normal is un-American, lawless, antidemocratic, dangerous to humans everywhere including Americans and not in our national interest. This is not anything that remotely is a threat to my country the one that while flawed had a constitution and more important a Bill of Rights. These are inherent universal rights that keep totalitarianism in check. When we the people become enemy it's time to let people know what's being done.

          Courage is contagious and I wish more people would stand up and say No! to this definition of the US. Shining a light is not any threat to a democratic republic, but our government has made it quite clear that our rights are a threat to their slide to the dark side. The truth is not a threat unless it reveals exactly who and what they are protecting with their state secrets. My country or party right or wrong is nothing 'we the people' support or consent to.    

      •  Greenwald's "speech?" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        richardak

        It was an interview with an Argentinian newspaper. It was published in Spanish -- I don't know what language the interview was conducted in, but I imagine it was in English. Greenwald was probably surprised to find the Reuters story on an interview he did in the Spanish language media. But that's what Reuters does. They're international. They report in multiple languages on matters of interest.

        The interview is not very long. If you read Spanish, it's online here

        If you read it, you will see that Greenwald was not misquoted by Reuters reporters at all. There may be some question about the specific meaning of "rogando."  The substance is the same, regardless.

        The context which Greenwald claims Reuters left out of their report is not particularly exculpatory, and I would say their editing choices had to do more with space limits than any effort on Reuters part to "distract" from the story of the bad things the US Government does.

        Don't forget, Reuters personnel were shown being cruelly slaughtered in the "Collateral Murder" video released by WikiLeaks. Reuters had unsuccessfully sought video of the incident from the Pentagon prior to WikiLeaks' release of a copy apparently from Bradley Manning.

        Greenwald's efforts to blame Reuters for reporting things he said in an interview with La Nacion are weak.

        Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

        by felix19 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:33:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They sliced an statement out (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade

          As I showed in the diary header, they cut out an important part of Greenwald's statement, namely that Snowden does not want to reveal any damaging information. That's very much exculpatory. It makes it clear that the only reason that damaging information is likely to be released is the US government's own actions.

          Let's give an example. If I say, "You should check the batteries on your smoke detector. If you don't, you could die in a fire. It's not very expensive to do so."  If I chop out the middle sentence, it sounds as if I'm just talking about cost. It isn't misquotation to elide that sentence. But it's a distortion.

          More to the point, when you trim statements, you're supposed to use ellipses to make it clear that something is missing. Reuters failed to do that. It's crappy journalism. It doesn't matter that they lost people to US gunfire. The effect of the way the quote is edited is to sensationalize what Greenwald is saying.

           

          •  The effect is to report what he said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            richardak

            in an interview with La Nacion. He doesn't like the way it was edited. We get that. But he was not misquoted, and the upshot of what he has had to say was not distorted.

            It looks to me like Greenwald was playing to an audience and he didn't think that what he was saying and the way he was saying it would be picked up by an international news service and reposted in English. Oh well.

            His defense is much like that of a government official who revises and extends his remarks after encountering controversy over something he said or wrote previously. What Greenwald said was inflammatory -- whether he meant it that way or not. And the part Reuters edited out does not change the inflammatory nature of what was posted.

            Given Snowden's apparently highly precarious situation in Moscow right now, this sort of statement was not helpful.

            Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

            by felix19 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:55:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I've given you an example... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade

              Look, if I were Glenn Greenwald, I would have said it differently. What he said was capable of being deformed into sounding like a threat when, in fact, Snowden himself has said the same thing, though not as directly.  

              But it's not a threat. "If you light a match to your gas tank it will explode" is not a threat unless you light the match. The US government is the one lighting matches.  

              This is not a new opinion for me. I said it weeks ago. Long before Greenwald gave his interview. The US government is the one playing with fire. If I can see it, why can't the US government?  

              •  It's obvious (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                richardak

                to me that -- given Snowden's recent appearance and appeal in Moscow -- Greenwald fucked up by needlessly inflaming the situation with thoughtless comments to a foreign language paper that he probably thought would play well in Argentina but which he never thought would be picked up and reposted in English.

                Your example is not directly germane to the situation of a man trapped in Moscow with no way out barring Russian intervention -- which apparently requires assurance from Snowden that he will desist harming the USA. Greenwald shot his mouth off at an unfortunate (for Snowden) moment, which he apparently realized as soon as he saw the Reuters piece. By stating that the information Snowden has and has distributed to others (including, one assumes, Greenwald) can cause more harm to the US in a minute than anyone else has ever had, he -- probably inadvertently -- seriously jeopardized Snowden's potential for gaining asylum in Russia. Under the circumstances Greenwald described, there's no way for Snowden to assure the Russians that he will cease harming their "American partners."  Essentially, he can't. It's too late.

                Blaming Reuters for posting what Greenwald said is a cheap shot. Greenwald has tried to smooth over the situation with his revised and extended remarks, and that may work. Stranger things have happened. But he didn't do Snowden any favors, and may well have made his situation immeasurably worse.

                Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

                by felix19 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:33:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh for fuck sake (0+ / 0-)

                  give it a rest who cares how Snowden or Glenn Greenwald phased the so called 'threat'. The real threat is the US's clampdown on any one who dares to let the world know what the US 'security' state is up too. The scope of what the spooks and our shadow government is up too is what is really threatening. US interests? BS.

                  The US shadow government is being 'threatened' by the truth. Are we at war with Russia, China, or SA? I thought ME terrorists we're the enemy. Oh yeah the world at large is nothing but would be terrorists so scary that we all need to give up our rights, human and civil.

                  Snowden who dared to spill the beans most already knew  is consorting with the old enemy from the last absurd war The Cold one. The enemy is everywhere as the world a battlefield filled with our enemies both foreign and domestic.      

                •  This is a misreading (0+ / 0-)

                  You said:

                  Your example is not directly germane to the situation of a man trapped in Moscow with no way out barring Russian intervention -- which apparently requires assurance from Snowden that he will desist harming the USA.
                  Really, felix, you need to be more patient in parsing what people say in news reports.

                  Putin said that Russia would offer asylum only if Snowden didn't release material damaging to the US while he was in Russia.

                  But (a) Russian asylum is not necessary. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights sounds like she is going to grant Snowden refugee status. Then Snowden can travel to any country willing to grant him asylum. And any country that bars the way will be breaking international law, and (b) if that were not enough, the Speaker of the Duma declared that Snowden should receive temporary asylum. It's doubtful he would have said this if it hadn't been cleared at the highest levels.  

                  It doesn't look at all to me as if Snowden is trapped. Granted, this is speculative, but all signs point to the granting of refugee status, solving everyone's problems. Except, of course, the Administration's.

                  •  "Sounds like?" "International law?" (0+ / 0-)

                    Come on CharlesII, you're better than that.

                    I'm going by Snowden's own statements at Sheremetyevo -- both as posted by WikiLeaks and as reported from the scene, and by what's already happened vis a vis a certain Latin American President's plane over Europe.

                    The meeting at the airport with Russian officials and human rights organization reps was called to discuss Snowden's plight and to ask their help in arranging 1) temporary Russian asylum while 2) safe passage arrangements are made with unnamed Western European and North American governments.

                    Whether any of that can be done is still up in the air, so to speak. Snowden was reported to have made certain statements with regard to his reapplication for Russian asylum that indicated he was capable and willing to agree to Putin's stated conditions for granting him asylum (we can argue endlessly and futilely over what, exactly, those conditions are, but from a diplomatic perspective, it doesn't matter, as long as Snowden agrees, which in principle he has done.)

                    In this case, international law is essentially irrelevant, as nations have been doing pretty much whatever they want whenever their governments believe it's in their national interest to do so. After all, they have Bush/Cheney's wars and other outrages as models, and Obama does it with a big ol' grin, too. To invoke international law is lovely, but unfortunate and too often deadly reality tends to intervene.

                    Snowden made clear that he wants to travel safely and legally on grants of asylum, which he "formally accepted" -- whatever that means -- on Friday. He proposed a way to accomplish his goal: temporary Russian asylum and safe passage guarantees from Western European and North American governments.

                    There may be other ways, such as the ones you mention, but the point is that he cannot travel safely and legally until something is done to spring him from the trap he's in.

                    Greenwald did not help Snowden's cause by making such inflammatory statements in the Argentine interview, and he may have set it back significantly. That remains to be seen, in part because Greenwald acted promptly -- seemingly as soon as the Reuters article was posted -- to try to calm the situation. Sometimes that is really all it takes to put such things back on track.

                    I'm not concerned about any so-called "threats" to the US Government if Snowden is brought to any harm.  The USG is a pretty sturdy institution, all things considered, and has weathered all kinds of existential threats from many directions over the last couple of hundred years. I suspect it can handle these "threats" without disintegrating.

                    At this point, I'm much more concerned with 1) the ground level daily domestic surveillance and what it is being used for and 2) Snowden's ability to find some sort of refuge and safety for the long term.

                    Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

                    by felix19 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:16:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just watch and see, felix (0+ / 0-)

                      You're so impatient with parsing statements carefully, so quick to dismiss the importance of international law.

                      I can't prove to you that Edward Snowden is going to get safe passage to a country in which he will enjoy asylum. Nor can you persuade me that he's trapped. Events will prove who is right. Maybe we'll both be proven wrong.  

                      Like you, I also care about damage to the day to day. I've pointed out that a lack of information on, say, the Korean peninsula, could result in a war based on miscalculation, with potentially millions of casualties.  

                      But it's pretty obvious that nothing Snowden has would affect that directly. The NSA is not the CIA. It does not place agents in the field. If there's someone in Iran's phone company who has placed taps on the phones of the government, NSA wouldn't know his name. It would just know the device characteristics and approximate location. For Iran to figure out who is responsible, they'd have to have raw intercepts, and even then, it would take a lot of work or even be impossible.

                      Greenwald has just given another interview that makes clearer what's in the deadman's switch. It's pretty much what I expected.

  •  Thanks for posting (10+ / 0-)

    So I don't have to!

    I would just add this link:

    Guardian/Greenwald: About the Reuters article

    400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

    by koNko on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:24:37 AM PDT

    •  Lost in translation? 'Praying' vs 'Begging' (20+ / 0-)

      I see that posters here who have firmly positioned themselves as anti-Snowdon/Anti-Greenwald are making a huge point out of the Reuters phrase that America should be 'on its knees begging'.  

      To Americans of a highly nationalistic stripe, that short phrase carries a double-whammy combo:  'on its knees' (suggesting subjection, domination, defeat) and 'begging' (humiliated, humbled).  And the ES/GG-haters are assuming (and stating) that Greenwald 'said' that America should be 'on its knees begging' someone -- who?  Snowden?  Greenwald?  Both?

      It's a nice use of some of the Disinformation Techniques presented in Horace Boothroyd III's diary yesterday (which can be found here:  http://www.dailykos.com/...).

      But I fear this meme may be based on nothing more than a difference in translation.

      The phrase in question was originally written in Spanish, and the diarist has provided a Spanish link.

      There's the phrase in Google translation:

      http://translate.google.com.br/...

      The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

      Here's the phrase that Reuters used:
      http://www.reuters.com/...

      "The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."

      In the Spanish version, it looks like the word 'rogando' has been translated differently -- as 'begging' by Reuters and as 'praying' by Google translate.  (A Spanish speaker also provided a translation in HBIII's diary linked above.)

      I should also note that bout English sources say 'The US government', not 'America.  Some will think this a quibble, but there is a difference.  'America' (as the name of our country) is a concept-word, like 'Brittania' for Great Britain.  Now , as a concept name, 'America' has an enormous emotional pull for Americans, as in:  'God bless America, land that I love'.

       The sentence in question is not saying that 'America' should be 'on its knees begging'; it says that the US government -- that is going to such lengths to defend its secret global surveillance state -- should be praying that nothing happens to Snowden.

      Snowden was an infrastructure analyst, and thus had access to absolutely everything.  That dead-man's switch, if activated could reveal much, much more than the limited amount of documents now in journalist's hands.  It could contain -- and I stress 'could', for this is just my conjecture -- it could contain internal emails showing the smoking guns in the hands of the corporate and governmental individuals who built the surveillance structure and shot the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments full of holes.

      •  I wondered about that. (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Don midwest, CroneWit, Dburn, Kombema, corvo, koNko

        I thought that would be a bit more of an error than Greenwald would be likely to commit.

        It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

        by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:32:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  'Rodango' and 'Rogation Days' (8+ / 0-)

          I'd like to see how someone from Latin America would translate that sentence, someone with enough cultural understanding to know how that sentence 'sounds' in its cultural context.

          I don't speak Spanish, but from my early involvement with the Catholic Church (which ended about 4 decades ago), I have a sense of its Latinate base in the term 'Rogation Days'.

          As a young adult, I went on retreat a couple of times at a Franciscan monastery.  I went in May, and the Church calendar contained a 'Rogation Day' during my stays.  Just after morning Mass, the robed priests and monks (followed with visitors) would formally process with incense and holy water to the fields, chanting a 'St So-and-so, pray for us'.  At the fields, the priests would read a a formal blessing on the fields, asking ('rogando'-ing, I suppose) that the fields and the earth and the harvest would be fruitful so the future would be provided for.

          My guess is that, in countries so influenced by Spanish Catholicism, the term 'rogando' would likely carry the connotation of that particular type of prayer.  If my guess is correct, then that sentence may carry something like the connotation, 'US government should pray that God bless them and provide for/protect their future by keeping Snowden safe.'

      •  Yes. All disagreement is conspiracy (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bonsai66, vcmvo2, Fogiv, richardak

        The only people with genuine opinions are people who agree with a certain side of the divide.

        Y'know who relies on this sort of accusation? People who find they cannot debate their position.

        •  You're pretty good with that too (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead

          I just read your comments up and down this tread and the straw man arguments you pull out are hilarious.

          Sorry all this disagreement has hurt your feelings and made you feel all victimized.

          Things get better.

          400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

          by koNko on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:37:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Fair point, praying vs. begging (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        congenitalefty, CroneWit, corvo, koNko

        "Rogar" in Spanish does, I believe, carry the feeling of an interaction between extreme unequals, a bit more like begging. But it does seem likely that Greenwald would have said "pray," not "beg," since praying is more idiomatic in English.  

        And, yes, exposure of the corporate/governmental ties could be very, very embarrassing to certain people.

        As for "America," it has a different meaning in Latin America than it does in the US. In Latin America, it means all of the western hemisphere. In the US, it means the US.

      •  Begging is probably a more accurate way to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, koNko

        translate 'rogando'. Of course, it depends on context.

        •  Someone has no Latin, and is neither Catholic nor (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FG, Kombema, CroneWit, corvo, koNko

          Episcopalian.

          Wikipedia:

          The word "Rogation" comes from the Latin verb rogare, meaning "to ask", and was applied to this time of the liturgical year because the Gospel reading for the previous Sunday included the passage "Ask and ye shall receive" (Gospel of John 16:24). The Sunday itself was often called Rogation Sunday as a result, and marked the start of a three-week period (ending on Trinity Sunday), when Roman Catholic and Anglican clergy did not solemnize marriages (two other such periods of marital prohibition also formerly existed, one beginning on the first Sunday in Advent and continuing through the Octave of Epiphany, or 13 January, and the other running from Septuagesima until the Octave of Easter, the Sunday after Easter).
          A common feature of Rogation days in former times was the ceremony of "beating the bounds", in which a procession of parishioners, led by the minister, churchwarden, and choirboys, would proceed around the boundary of their parish and pray for its protection in the forthcoming year.
          I think they still do this in some places.

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

          by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:49:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Depends on context. Sure, this meaning exists (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo

            but 'rogar' is usually translated as 'to beg'. It is possible that GG meant 'pray', of course.

            •  "Usually", by whom? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CroneWit, koNko

              Lots of other questions involved, too. Did Greenwald attempt to communicate in Spanish, or was the interview translated into Spanish by the interviewer?

              Spanish has lots of other words for "to beg", all with slightly different meanings. "Mendicar" is literally to beg for money. "Suplicar" and "implorar" are to plead. "Pedir" is to ask for. And then  there are all the local idioms....

              But if you want to put the worst possible construction on it, go right ahead. The US Government wants you to.

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

              by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:09:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  According the the LaRousse (0+ / 0-)

                Pray [prei] v. intr. Rezar, orar: to pray for s.o., rezar por alguien. || Rogar (to beg):

                "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." —John Kenneth Galbraith

                by eyeswideopen on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:06:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  According to Greenwald (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CharlesII, FG

                He conversed with the reporters through interpreters, the articles were written in Spanish and Portuguese and then translated back by English news services.

                So lots of interpretation in the process.

                So people who want to get themselves all hot and bothered on a Sunday afternoon can assume "beg" despite the fact neither Snowden ot Greenwald has made such statements in their native English.

                400ppm : what about my daughter's future?

                by koNko on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:42:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, you quibble. (0+ / 0-)

        The substance of the statement is the same no matter how you translate "rogando." Choose any of the several translations of "rogando" into English, and it's still the same substance as in the Reuters translation:

        "The U.S. government should be on its knees every day begging [praying, pleading, asking, requesting] that nothing happen to Snowden, because if something does happen to him, all the information will be revealed and it could be its worst nightmare."
        (BTW "Rogar" means the same in Portuguese, which Greenwald speaks fluently, and it is generally translated "to beg.")

        As for the contents of this "worst nightmare" for the US Government -- I suspect not even Greenwald knows, but at the same time, Greenwald knows enough and has access to enough information to make the claim.

        Unless it's hyperbole...

        Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

        by felix19 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:51:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The substance is not the same (0+ / 0-)

          Praying is something one does to God. Begging is something one does primarily with humans.

          If the word is translated begging, it sounds as if Greenwald wants the US to make requests of other nations. If it's translated praying, it sounds like it's a request of God. The latter is also more idiomatic.

          These distinctions may be subtle...too subtle for some... but they very much affect how people respond to the statement.

          •  The substance is the same (0+ / 0-)

            but this is the kind of quibble that some people love because it cannot be authoritatively, finally, completely, unequivocally resolved -- barring Greenwald and the interviewer from La Nacion agreeing on what was said, what language was used, and what was meant and what was understood.

            Until then, tangential arguments are guaranteed.

            Praying and begging are essentially the same in the context of being on one's knees, though you're free to quibble.

            It doesn't change the substance of the remark, one that comes across perhaps more as playing to an audience than as a thoughtful and considered statement of what Greenwald or Snowden actually believe or want to communicate at this time.

            Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

            by felix19 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:34:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're saying literary analysis doesn't exist (0+ / 0-)

              Those kinds of quibbles are exactly how one finds out what authors mean. And, yes, they're tiresome and never satisfactory the way accounting is.

              •  I'm saying tangential arguments are guaranteed (0+ / 0-)

                Thanks for making my point.

                I suppose you could ask Greenwald what he meant: whether to pray on one's knees or to beg or one of the less common translations of "rogando."

                But I bet he wouldn't answer.

                May the literary analysis continue!

                Blogging as Ché Pasa since 2007.

                by felix19 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:11:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Parsing doesn't make the phrase more palatible.. (0+ / 0-)

        begging or praying,  the on your knees bit implies servitude either way.

        The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

        by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:35:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It matters to whom one is begging/praying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit

          The nationalistic instinct reacts violently and negatively against America kneeling to another nation. But no person of faith finds kneeling to God humiliating.

          •  We'd be kneeling to Snowden here, not God (0+ / 0-)

            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

            by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:56:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Which makes Greenwald's comment... (0+ / 0-)

              all the more offensive.

              The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

              by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:32:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks koNko (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, corvo, koNko

      The link was in the article, but it was a bit buried. I have added another link to the header.

  •  In answer to your question. (7+ / 0-)

    Our government would best be served by forgetting about Snowden, unless he sets foot back in-country.

    We have some pretty serious damage control to do - and pursuing Snowden beyond what we have agreed to with the rest of the world, vis a vis international law, isn't particularly helpful.

    And our damage control will be getting tougher, as more material already in the hands of media is released.

    It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

    by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:25:05 AM PDT

    •  What does this mean? (0+ / 0-)
      pursuing Snowden beyond what we have agreed to with the rest of the world, vis a vis international law, isn't particularly helpful.
      •  It means that the laws of political... (9+ / 0-)

        ...asylum pertain.

        It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

        by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:59:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for clarifying (0+ / 0-)

          The US has done nothing to violate those

          indeed, the fact the USA has acted to try to stop Mr Snowden from reaching a nation offering asylum provides a strong clue that the USA understands Mr Snowden is out of reach once he arrives in such a nation.

          •  The act of... (7+ / 0-)

            ...reaching asylum is also within those laws.

            It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

            by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:33:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is complete nonsense (5+ / 0-)

              No nation is prevented from asking other countries for assistance in making an arrest simply because the fugitive has asked yet other nations for asylum. Asylum protects the fugitive while the fugitive is in that specific nations. Asylum is not a global get-out-of-every-jail-on-Earth card.

              I understand Mr Greenwald made that nonsense claim, but it remains nonsense. Pure, incorreect, nonsense.

              Note that Jonathan pollard is still in US jail even though Israel wants to offer him asylum. Too bad for Mr Pollard his get-out-of-jail card is nonsensical.

              •  Nope. It's correct, under customary internat'l law (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Don midwest, CroneWit, 3goldens, Dumbo

                Pollard was a spy for a foreign government, thus NOT covered by the UDHR. Political refugees are a completely different thing -- and interfering with asylum is generally interpreted to be part of that.

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

                by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:11:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Mr Snowden is not wanted for political crimes (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  emelyn, sviscusi

                  He is wanted for statutory crime. And to-date, Mr Snowden does not have asylum. He has offers...offers means that status might occur in the future.

                  So no, it is utter nonsense to say that sonce a nation has offered asylum, the USA is no longer legally able to pursue its own international diplomacy.

                  •  He is a political refugee, avoiding persecution (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CroneWit, 3goldens, Dumbo

                    for his political actions and beliefs, and fleeing from probable internationally unlawful abuse and violation of due process right in custody when and if detained by the American government. He is the definition of a refugee, and therefore is accorded the right to asylum according to international law.

                    You're welcome to object to the Universal Declaration, but it is binding to all in the United Nations system. Just because the U.S. gov't doesn't want Snowden to have such status, doesn't mean he's not eligible, or that the U.S. automatically has the right to interfere with his asylum efforts.

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

                    by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:13:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No he is not (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      emelyn, sviscusi

                      He is wanted for breaking statutory law. He is not a legislator from teh opposition party.  He is wanted for violating the non-disclosure agreements he signed in his own hand.

                      The fact that virtually every nation on Earth, incuding Russia, recognize this should give people such as yourselves reason to pause in thought.

                      Now, an individual nation can decide for its own purposes that Mr Snowden is deserving of asylum. As each nation is sovereign, each nation has that power.

                      •  A "legislator"? The majority of political refugees (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        3goldens, ask

                        in countries around the world are average citizens who stand up to what they perceive is political oppression or injustice. This is what Snowden was doing. He broke laws, most certainly, but that doesn't change his status as a political refugee one bit. That's why they call it international law. Each nation doesn't get to decide on its own whether to follow it.

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

                        by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:38:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Political crimes are not statutory crimes? (0+ / 0-)

                    In the nation making the charges?  Think where you're going with that.

          •  Yes, it has. Customary internat'l law prohibits (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, Joieau, 3goldens, Dumbo, semiot

            interfering with a protected class asylum seeker's efforts toward refuge. This means it does not just apply to those who have arrived at said refuge.

            Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee (or for cases where repressing base means has been applied directly or environmentally to the defoulé refugee) is a person who is outside their own country's territory (or place of habitual residence if stateless) owing to fear of persecution on protected grounds. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership and/or participation in any particular social group or social activities. Rendering true victims of persecution to their persecutor is a particularly odious violation of a principle called non-refoulement, part of the customary and trucial Law of Nations.

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

            by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:08:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And he is SEEKING It (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sviscusi

              That does not mean once someone SEEKS a status, no one is allowed to advocate the other side of the coin.

              Mr Snowden is not a refugee either. He is a wanted man for breaking criminal law.

              •  Because he's being persecuted, his status is (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens, Dumbo

                automatic under international law. He does not need an official "ruling" on this, by definition, and falls under the protected class of political refugee. Look it up. If a political dissident from China, North Korea, Burma, Pinochet's Chile, etc., were seeking refuge, the customary international law gives them the benefit of the doubt.

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

                by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:48:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Snowden is a political dissident. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kombema

              His motives in this are clear.

              Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

              by semiot on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:58:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. It is what it is. Time for US to move on. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, corvo, Kombema, gooderservice, Dumbo

      If, as I have suggested elsewhere, it is likely that the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights will declare him to be a refugee, it will no longer be legal under international law for nations to attempt to seize him.

      The Great Powers, of course, think they are above international law. But it would really, really put a crimp in US efforts to arrest him.

      So, better for the US to go to damage control and not dig itself in any deeper than it did with intercepting Morales' plane.
       

  •  What's the best way for the government to (8+ / 0-)

    get out of this without damaging itself?  That depends.  For many, the damage is done.  The US is spying on everyone, all the time.  That is damaging.  It should be anyway.  
    OTOH, Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela have been successfully painted as the enemies and the War OF Terror has got a boost.  This whole thing is actually helping to justify the revised Cold War and the War OF Terror.  It's also opened up the whole thing to the public which doesn't seem overly concerned, thereby aiding the acclimation of the public to this surveillance planet.   That's good for the government and those that control it, but it's not good for the rest of us.  

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

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:31:34 AM PDT

  •  A couple of things (12+ / 0-)
    1) the full information, especially the most damaging parts, has not been released, nor will it be as long as Snowden is alive. The Russians don't have it. The Chinese don't have it.
    As long as Snowden is alive.....what if he actually, you know, died. Extremely unlikely but not impossible for Snowden to have a heart attack or brain haemorrhage or some such.

    The Russians and Chinese don't have it......how can you be so sure of that? Did the man not sleep for all the time he was in Hong Kong and now Russia?

    I think it's doubtful that the documents include, for example, the names of personnel in foreign countries who have facilitated data collection.
    Let's hope for the sake of those personnel you are right.

    As for GG, he did say those things so It's not clear what the point is.

    Ron Reagan: "Sarah Palin's constituency are people who wear red rubber noses and bells on their shoes."

    by AnnetteK on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:36:48 AM PDT

    •  Any agents included in Mr Snowden's stolen files (7+ / 0-)

      will already have been pulled from whatever missions they had been assigned to. All the information Mr Snowden stole will be assumed to be lost and in the hands of foreign organizations. They have no choice but to assume the worst-case scenario.

      •  Doubt it is that easy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit, Quicklund

        He was a sysadmin/security analyst. His access was ubiquitous.

        "Theoretically" he had his hands in everything and apparently he did it carefully.

        Keep in mind, Snowden was the guy they would go to to determine the damage of someone else that hacked their files.

        •  Be that as it may (0+ / 0-)

          We can be certain affected agencies are doing what they can, based on the forced assumption the information Mr Snowden stole is lost to 3rd parties. The point I am working towards is the worst-case scenario must be assumed to exist. (Until proven otherwise of course.)

        •  Ubiquitous access, but different agency (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit

          NSA does not put agents into the field. It just takes in intercepted information. That would not contain agents' names.

          However, with enough time, and a knowledge of how intercepts were done, a foreign intelligence agency could figure out who had access to the vital switch (or whatever). So, any collaborator could be exposed. But intel service would have to know the method of interception, including the physical location of the device used for interception. In many cases, that will not have required anyone inside the country under surveillance.

          At any rate, unearthing the collaborators would take a lot of time to figure out.

    •  Time diminishes the value of information (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit

      I'll be happy to pray for Snowden's health. I certainly don't want to see the information fully released.

      Why do I believe that the Russians and Chinese do not have the information? Because Snowden's job was, in part, to secure data against...the Russians and Chinese. He surely knows encryption, the use of multiple keys, and other means of protecting information.

      Now, given time, anyone can decrypt encrypted material. But brute force methods take time. Time diminishes the value of information. Within days of Snowden's departure, any actual agents would have been exfiltrated. Collaborators wouldn't happen so fast, I think, but weeks-month should be enough for them.

      In ten years, anything Snowden has will be ancient history.  

      And that's roughly how long a decrypt is likely to take.

  •  Same goal as any blackmailer: (6+ / 0-)

    The goal of the blackmailer is to have his demands met. It's not to perform the threatened act. And, like every blackmailer Greenwald always pretends that the blackmailer is forced by the failure to pay the ransom
     

    "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:37:05 AM PDT

    •  Blackmail now? (6+ / 0-)

      How fucking far out on a limb are you?  Snowden is trying to protect his life. Protecting his life is Blackmail?

      The goal of the blackmailer is to have his demands met.
      That's a clean miss . What are his demands?

      It also shows to what ends people are focused on making this story about Snowden in a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the people responsible for allowing the surveillance state to expand far beyond what was argued about prior to to 2007 when everyone thought the Democrats would actually do something about this , like making the Patriot Act a central focus of a large scale legislative effort to roll it back or at the very least cut the funds of the NSA.

      The facts point unerringly to a party that has gone full Republican in a weak effort to show it has balls. The above posts focused on nothing but GG and Snowden show the apologizers for the surveillance state are out in force.

      Considering that there was no one on this site that was for the NSA abuses prior to Obama starting in office and in fact there were  diary after diary about who would do more to protect our constitutional rights : Clinton or Obama, I have to wonder if the apologists for the law breaking Obama administration will show themselves when the GOP takes over and  start to use new Nevada facility and undoubtedly other facilities in ways many of us can only imagine that will be far worse than anything that happened while Bush was in office.

      Make no mistake either, with the groundwork being done now and the accelerating advances in in power computing technology the methods people use for encryption will soon be as effective as licking an envelope. After all the Nevada facility was not only built to store all communications but to build ultra powerful computers to break encryption by brute force in large enough scale to meet the the demands of the pervs and Voyeurs of the intelligence community's private contractors.

      It costs 40 Billion a year now ++. By 2016 , it may very well be the annual cost of a real war - a war fought against the American people by it's own govt.

      Those are the stakes. Snowden , Greenwald and Obama are simply transient players in this nightmare.

      I imagine a whole slew of new registrations will occur as people change their screen names in a effort to distance themselves from the persona's that are now spouting one bullshit line after another.

      Because no one would ever accuse the apologists for law breaking by Govt officials of doing any long term thinking. Perhaps they simply don't have that capacity.

      “ Success has a great tendency to conceal and throw a veil over the evil of men. ” — Demosthenes

      by Dburn on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:51:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All smear, all the time -- the actual NSA program (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lady Libertine, Dburn, CroneWit, DeadHead

        illegality and un-Constitutionality be damned. This is about kiling the messenger, and impugning the patriotism and motives of anyone who opposes the disclosures about Obama administration malfeasance, secrets, and lies.

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

        by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:16:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Except that the demand here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cassiodorus, CroneWit

      Is to not be murdered.  

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:33:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's not talking about murder. (0+ / 0-)

        Greenwald is pretty vague, and the coin demanded certainly subject to change.

        I actually think it's obvious what Greenwald is getting at. Nobody has threatened Snowden with anything but prosecution.  That's what he wants the USG to think about.

        "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:14:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If someone was threatening (0+ / 0-)

      to kill a person, and that person said, "I have evidence on you that will put you away for a long time.  I will release it to the authorities if you kill.  You better hope nothing happens to me"

      Is that blackmail?  And if it is blackmail would you be against the person who was using this to defend himself against someone who want to kill him?

      Perhaps Snowden is dillusional, fine (I don't believe that).   But this type of "blackmail" is one that makes sense.

      To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      by Indiana Bob on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:35:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody threatened to kill Snowden. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        And the threat isn't limited to death, so we all know what Greenwald is getting at: prosecution.

        "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:30:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  LMAO: "Blackmailer." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead
    •  'Blackmailer' is your new meme (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pale Jenova, WheninRome

      In addition to this instance, there's these two other comments of yours in the last day or so pushing the same bullshit:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...
      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      Congrats on perpetuating yet another smear.

      Great work.




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

      by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:28:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mr Greenwald doesn't make a living by writing (5+ / 0-)

    so as a non-professional he can hardly be criticized for using loaded terms such as "the USA gov't should be on its knees every day begging". A communications professional of course would understand that such loaded terms would provide the sound-bite. A veteran political writer would anticipate that the loaded terms would be what catches the casual readers' eyes, and that most Americans are casual readers when it comes to politics. So it is understandable how one so new to this endeavor  might fall into the mistake of using such terms.

    Oh wait...

    1) the full information, especially the most damaging parts, has not been released, nor will it be as long as Snowden is alive. The Russians don't have it. The Chinese don't have it.
    Neither you nor I and possibly even Mr Snowden know if this is true or not. one thing though is certain. Every national security agency in every country have no option but to assume China and Russia have those files. That is what happens when secret information is lost. The worst-case scenario is assumed to be the actual scenario.
    What is the best way for the US to get out of this without damaging itself? It does not look like that it will be able to accomplish that by threats, bullying, or murder. So, what should our government do?
    "Get out of what" exactly? Do you mean, "How will all this end?" No one "forces" Mr Snowden to commit more crime. What the US will do is continue to use their advantage - time. The FBI has a far longer lifespan than Mr Snowden. And every day the information Mr Snowden stole becomes a day more obsolete.

    What will the US do? they will wait until Mr Snowden either turns himself in, or until Mr Snowden is vulnerable to arrest. Then the US will arrest him.

    Will Mr Snowden then release even more of his secret files? If he wants to face consecutive 30-year terms instead of concurrent terms, then yes he will.

  •  Very naive (17+ / 0-)

    To think the Russians, Chinese, or whomever grants asylum to Snowden will not get access to what he has if they want it. Putin could take Snowden now, ship him to Siberia, and take every last thing Snowden has and no one would do anything about it except lodge a few complaints that go nowhere.

    If Snowden took information that could seriously damage the U.S., as Greenwald says, as some sort of leverage for his safety and then took that information to foreign countries with whom we have tense relationships, then he has deliberately put this country in danger.

    Furthermore, Greenwald is an idiot for broadcasting the fact that Snowden has lots of important information that could hurt the U.S. Does he think the U.S. Is the only country that would like to get its hands on that information?

    He and Snowden should read up on what happened to agents who defected to Russia from other countries. They did not live like kings. One spent the rest of his life under house arrest, largely broke, and was not allowed back to his home country when he requested permission because the Russians feared what he might say.

    The best thing for Russia would be for Snowden to have an unfortunate accident that allows Russia to send his corpse bavk to the U.S. with regrets, along with some of the info he stole (after copying it) and a lie that that was all they found.

    Snowden's only value to anyone is the info he carries. He was not a spy and has no personal knowledge that would benefit anyone. Even if he claimed to have read these things and destroyed the originals, he would become useless because there would be no proof that anything he said was true or that he understood what he had read.

    I have no respect for Snowden or Greenwald and do not think the missing sentence nullifies the threat to U.S. security that Snowden's possession of the damaging information represents.

    I am sure Greenwald put that out there to telegraph to others that Snowden is valuable because he is a threat to the U.S. in the hope of persuading the U.S. to take him back or to secure a sweet deal for Snowden.

    The countries considering giving him asylum are not known for treating people nicely when they do not get what they want, and all Greenwald did was affirm for everyone that Snowden has the goods. And possibly painted a target on Snowden's back.

    Proud Aspie mom of an LGBT kid and some Aspies.

    by CatM on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:39:11 AM PDT

    •  Actually, it's naive to think that... (13+ / 0-)

      ...Snowden is carrying anything around with him, other than some pretty complex methods of communication and his dead man's triggers.

      Those computers of his don't have any information on them, almost for sure.

      Like him or not, he's not stupid.  Nobody with half a brain would carry that stuff around.

      It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

      by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:49:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, I am not impressed with his savvy. (9+ / 0-)

        Aside from fleeing to two of the most unlikely places, he's incentivized much of the world except the US to kill him just to see what the dead mans trigger might reveal.

        "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:57:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? I'm very impressed. (12+ / 0-)

          He's been alive and more or less free for six weeks more than most folks would have believed was possible.

          He has shaken the halls of power more than anyone I can recall.  And has done so politely.

          He has garnered many offers of sanctuary.

          He has maintained his sense of humor, while refusing to compromise one whit of his belief system.

          And he has a nice haircut.

          It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

          by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:08:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He is a small fish in the history of espionage (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bonsai66

            Mr Snowden is a scrod. Kim Philby was a Great White.

          •  More or less free? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bonsai66, Subterranean

            That's like being "more or less pregnant". Being stuck in a Russian airport lounge for weeks doesn't strike me as being free at all. Unless you like that sort of thing.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:30:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  He's spent three weeks in Russian custody. (0+ / 0-)

            After he hightailed it out of HK, which he was planning to stay for years.  

            All according to plan?

            "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:11:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're funny. One powerless guy against the (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CroneWit, WheninRome

              most powerful government in world history, and you're calling him stupid for finding that the U.S. gov't has been able to block some of his hoped-for routes to asylum. More to the point is the apparent failure of said mega-superpower to already have him in custody.

              Sounds pretty damn embarrassing to me -- which seems to be why they are willing to violate international norms and standards to try to apprehend him. The Washington establishment looks pretty weak and ineffectual -- a paper tiger, even -- compared to this one nobody pipsqueak, wouldn't you say?

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

              by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:29:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A one-off abuse of trust doesn't take brains. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sviscusi

                Lying to get a security clearance and then abusing that trust isn't the work of a master of intrigue.  It's a one off betrayal where he has no option but to flee.

                Then he had to flee from the place he fled to.

                If he's lucky, he'll get to Venezuela where that government, unlike ours, has an incentive to kill him, thanks to the idiotic announcement of a dead mans switch.

                Just like how coach drew it up on the sidelines?

                "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:22:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He didn't lie to get a security clearance. He'd ha (0+ / 0-)

                  had one since his days in the military. And "abusing that trust" is what the U.S. government did in instituting those secret programs, and that's why he's a whistle blower, and not the sociopath you and others seem to be trying to paint him as.

                  And I assume by "coach," you're flogging the BS meme that Greenwald orchestrated all this. Pretty weak tea, Inland.

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

                  by Kombema on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:22:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (10+ / 0-)

        sort of. It is not that I think he is stupid, but I think he is socially naive (kind of like an Aspie) and does not understand the danger he is in. Going to Hong Kong and then Russia were both pretty stupid/naive decisions. And it doesn't matter if the information is on him personally (although entrusting it to someone else would also be naive). If he has access to it, he will be required to hand it over or martyr himself and the fact that he fled the U.S. instead of facing the consequences shows that he is not the martyring type.

        If he does not give whomever what they want, then he stands a very good chance of getting shipped back to the U.S. to stand trial, which he obviously does not want.

        I do not think he thought this through very well, and he is probably going to regret this decision. He would have been better off if he had stopped after exposing that the U.S was spying on its citizens and not releasing the additional damaging information against the U.S. and making it clear he has much more.

        Why do you suppose Greenwald/Snowden wanted that out there? It was not to protect him from the U.S. The U.S. knows what he accessed and whether he is a danger and to what extent. They are not going to cut a deal with him.

        It was put out there as a subtle bargaining chip so some country would grant him asylum. He does not appear to want to go to Venezuela (can't blame him--not likely to be a safe place, particularly if he did not spill the beans) and did not want to stay in Hong Kong and apparently does not want to stay in Russia. I think Snowden naively imagined a country of his choosing would take him in, and is finding that the arm of the U.S. is much longer than he thought.

        No analyst or lawyer I have seen discussing this case thinks he acted intelligently, and I agree.

        Proud Aspie mom of an LGBT kid and some Aspies.

        by CatM on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:02:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kombema

        Our dkos "civilians" are making a lot of incorrect assumptions.

        Securing data was Snowden's job. We don't need to be armchair coaches for him on it.

      •  So they waterboard him until he (0+ / 0-)

        spills the beans.

        It's really not a good strategy at all.  I wish Snowden hadn't gotten mixed up with Greenwald.  His criticism of America is so strident as to be laughable.  It would have been more impressive if Snowden had hooked up with a journalist possessing a more nuanced understanding American Empire.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:03:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In addition, now they are saying that (10+ / 0-)

      all the info will automatically be released should Snowden die for any reason. So voilá, all Russia has to do is to poison him. No Siberia necessary. And as an added bonus, the US (no matter what) will get the blame from his supporters. This whole thing is so stupid that now I wonder whether Hollywood will pass on making a movie since it is just too stupid a scheme to be believable.

    •  Two points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      midwesterner, CroneWit

      This nonsens about snowmen and greenwald is a distraction and nothing more than another platform for the administrations defends to attack critics

      Second, that wouldn't be a threat to the country, only to its government.  Embarrassing the administration is not the same thing as harming the country.  Quite the opposite in fact, probably

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion. An activist seeks to change opinion.

      by Mindful Nature on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:39:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hardly a refutation (10+ / 0-)

    You yourself say it: "Keeping Snowden in Russia could force Snowden to barter the information he has (which goes far beyond anything he has in documents) for his freedom."

    Snowden is "forced" to do no such thing. But that telegraphs how Greenwald is going to try to spin it should that happen: the poor boy just couldn't help but become a traitor.

    •  Blackmailer listing things he would hate to happen (5+ / 0-)

      "you've got a lot of nice stuff here.  I'd hate to see something get broken"

      "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:51:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "If you murder me, I'll release the (11+ / 0-)

        information".

        "Quit blackmailing me!!!!"

        It's rough out there.

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

        by JesseCW on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:04:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  oh, is that the condition? Greenwalds pretty vague (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ddn, Bonsai66, USArmyParatrooper

          as to whether it requires murder.  Or whether things could change.  Not that it matters to you; you would be happy if he sold it for lunch money.

          "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:25:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can a TU please hide rate this? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WheninRome

            I have only been here 4-1/2 years; haven't collected enough points to do this myself.  But the commenter is saying without evidence that his interlocutor would be happy if Snowden sold out information damaging to the US for virtually nothing.

            •  Not worth HRing - maybe a recipe n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CharlesII

              Baloney sandwich

              2 slices bread
              Butter
              Baloney

              Toast the bread. Butter the toast as thickly as you wish. Place as many slices of baloney as you want on one of the toast slices. Put the other piece of toast on top, butter side down. Cut in half with a knife for easier eating.

              Mmmmmm - baloney! :-D

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

              by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:04:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, he could just go to the slaughter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, CroneWit, corvo

      Jesus did and, after all, every human being is just as strong as Jesus.

      Take just 5 minutes to walk in his shoes. Imagine yourself, believing that you have information that is vital to preserving liberty in the United States. You (a) turn yourself meekly over to the very people you believe are trying to destroy liberty, or (b) keep free long enough to get the information out there.

      You don't have to agree with Snowden to understand that what the United States is doing feels like coercion to him.

      •  Jesus? (8+ / 0-)

        JESUS?

        Seriously?

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:03:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, dear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit

          Jesus is a perfect example of someone who surrendered Himself to the authorities, knowing they would kill Him.

          ddn seems to think that Snowden should just meekly turn himself in. I think that s/he lacks the empathy to understand what it means to believe in a cause and be determined to see that cause through, not turning oneself in.

          You are free to disagree with my viewpoint, but mocking ddn for demanding that Snowden be willing to go to the slaughter is perfectly legitimate.

        •  My first thought when I read that post was (0+ / 0-)

          jesus fucking christ....MLK is played out.

          Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

          by jiffypop on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:21:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So Snowden is like Jesus now (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jiffypop

            But remember everyone, this isn't about Snowden. Not . . . at . . . all.

            But hey, if you hate Snowden you hate Jesus and Freedom and Progressivism. Just letting you know.

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:54:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

              But only in the minds of those incapable of seeing the analogy put forth by the above comment.

              Like you, apparently.




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

              by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:54:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I will reply to this gross distortion... (0+ / 0-)

              I will reply to this gross distortion of what I said with what I actually said:

              Take just 5 minutes to walk in his [Snwden's] shoes. Imagine yourself, believing that you have information that is vital to preserving liberty in the United States. You (a) turn yourself meekly over to the very people you believe are trying to destroy liberty, or (b) keep free long enough to get the information out there.

              You don't have to agree with Snowden to understand that what the United States is doing feels like coercion to him.

              There's just a little more nuance to that than the outlandish--trollish-- claim that I have somehow compared Snowden to Jesus.
  •  Looking at Greenwald's response to the Reuters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arizonablue, WinSmith

    article, I'm reminded of a scene from a famous movie.

    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:44:56 AM PDT

  •  So if the Russians or Chinese want the info (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladasue, Bonsai66

    released, all they have to do is to kill Snowden? He has set it up so that his death triggers the release of the data, so while for the US he has made it painful should he die, he has also provided ample incentive to every one of our adversaries to see to it that he expires. Just another example of how Snowden did not think things through all that clearly.

    •  This is paranoid stuff. (0+ / 0-)

      Let's flip this around. Which two countries aren't expressing any outrage for these revelations. China and Russia. Now your theory is they did some cold war drugging whatever stuff and got the information forcefully or whatever. Or there's the possibility that they just know this information already and just don't care. The only thing really useful to China and Russia with this saga is when Barack Obama calls them up to lecture them on the hacking/spying they do on the US then can point to Snowden and say, "Shut up dude. You do it too."

      To me it's just like Wikileaks releasing the diplomatic cables. The US cries it's going to ruin relations and reveal state secrets then...... nothing....

      Sure it sucks when your State Secrets are revealed. The damage in the real world is minimal except the embarrassment you receive. You send out some diplomats to apologize or whatever and move on. It's not like Snowden has the plot of Mission Impossible and has NOC lists. Cheney and co did far more damage by outing Valerie Plame then anything Snowden could reveal.

  •  Greenwald is a bald faced liar. Always has been. (8+ / 0-)

    I think we need to separate the Snoweden issue from the Greenwald issue.

    Glenn Greenwald is a bald faced liar. Is now and always has been.

    I stopped reading him on a regular basis because every story seemed to fall apart -- and I mean every single story -- after a 1 minute google fact check.

    Putting aside everything else, can we just look at the content of his statement?

    A: Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States.
    Wait, what?

    More damage than Osama binLaden?

    More damage that 19 hijackers on 9/11/01?

    More damage that Robert  E. Lee?

    More damage than General Tojo?

    More damage than Hitler?

    More damage than anyone has ever inflicted on the US ever?

    Since we know this by Greenwald cannot be true, why is someone like him who wants to be taken as a credible journalist making such a preposterous claim?

    But he always makes these idiotic comments -- like the comment that DKer Blackwaterdog was the same as Hitler propagandist Leni Reifenstahl.

    Or that supporters of President Obama would enjoy seeing a nun raped in television.

    Can we please get over the idea that this guy is anything other than a lying idiot whose words CAN NEVER BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE for being true?

    •  I've never read him so I don't know (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bonsai66, Catte Nappe

      But I do suspect this much is true. Mr Greenwald's reputation and career depend entirely on how The Snowden Affair plays out in the long run.

    •  I do think Snowden has been manipulated (4+ / 0-)

      to a large extent.

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

      by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What if we found out (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CharlesII, CroneWit, DeadHead, WheninRome

      That all this data that's being grabbed and stored is being used to force certain political actors to do the bidding of clandestine groups and corporations? What if we found out that there's been a silent coup?

      That would pretty much beat all your examples.

      Just sayin'....

      •  You didn't understand the Greenwald quote at all (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Overseas, virginislandsguy, jiffypop

        He said Snowden could harm the US, not your make believe invisible coup leaders.

      •  That seems more plausible. (0+ / 0-)

        It's naive to think Russia and China are worried about regular spying and operatives in the geopolitical sense. They play the game as well.

        I think the threat is internal. Just like Johnson couldn't out Nixon as an extortionist crook because he shouldn't have been eavesdropping legally. What if the NSA has a similar dead man's switch portfolio to keep the money flowing in? What if contractors do? What if their portfolio is what Snowden has?

        I doubt it has anything to do with NOC lists. It's probably dirty laundry of the high office type and probably not sex scandals, but the money trail. All the internecine graft that supports the facade.

        What if it unravels the financial crash? Since we are the largest economy, nobody [countries] want that exposed, the house of cards would affect them as well.

    •  Did you feel he was a bald-faced liar (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, ask

      When he was tearing Bush a new one daily?   What about the three NYT Bestsellers he wrote devoted to bashing the republicans?

      Where those bald-faced lies?

      Or did he not start lying until January 20th, 2009?

      To the NSA douchebag who is reading this: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

      by Indiana Bob on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:38:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Having fact checked his stories (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi

        I would say he's always been a bald faced liar and con man.

        Even his overall story is a lie. He was never a "constitutional lawyer," wasn't on law review at NYU, never litigated a con law case (other than the one for which he was almost disbarred), never published a scholarly article in a law review, never taught a con law course, is in Brazil not because of his partner but because he is fleeing tax judgments and civil court judgments against him (including one involving a dispute over a pornographic film company) -- but most importantly, read any of his articles like a fact checker and basically every single sentence falls apart.  

    •  Snowdens biggest mistake was getting involved (0+ / 0-)

      with Greenwald and Assange. They will use him to their own ends.

      Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

      by jiffypop on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:26:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To all kossacks cheering (12+ / 0-)

    the administration's position in the Snowden affair, I would ask that you at least have the intellectual integrity to own up to what you are supporting.

    The President of the United States has successfully strong armed every nation whose air space lies between Moscow and South America to assassinate the air crew of any plane carrying Snowden that refuses an order to land.

    Think about what it means for an airplane to be forced to land. This is not some cartoon scenario where the "good guys" deploy a fucking grappling hook and tow the offender down to a runway.

    No, we are talking about assassination here. Every nation that, at the behest of the U.S., has committed to prohibit a Snowden-bearing plane from traveling through its air space, has in fact committed to assassinate Snowden and the crew of the plane.

    This what you armchair warriors are cheering.

    No matter how misguided you may believe Snowden's actions to have been, there is absolutely NO evidence that he stole classified info on behalf of, or at the direction of, a foreign nation or entity. There is absolutely NO evidence that he stood to personally profit in any way from his actions.

    What all the evidence DOES suggest is that Snowden believes the NSA and its hundreds of thousands of private sector contractors are engaged in massive, unconstitutional spying upon his fellow Americans.

    At tremendous (and escalating) personal jeopardy, Snowden broke the law to bring this to the attention of the nation.

    Now, we can debate whether Snowden could have succeeded in fostering this national dialog by lodging his grievances "through channels." We can debate whether, having broken the law, he should now voluntarily remand himself to spend the rest of his natural life in some shithole prison.

    What is NOT debatable is that President Obama has ordered a hit on Snowden and any air crew that chooses to assist him in his pursuit of political asylum.

    There is no way to spin this. I repeat what I stated above: Every nation that, at the behest of the U.S., has committed to prohibit a Snowden-bearing plane from traveling through its air space, has in fact committed to assassinate Snowden and the crew of the plane.

    You all just peachy fine with that? That's OK, I guess, if that's how you roll. But OWN it.

    Just fucking own it.

    Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

    by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:23:21 AM PDT

    •  You lost all credibility right here ---> (27+ / 0-)
      to assassinate the air crew of any plane carrying Snowden
      No reason to read beyond that phrase. I don't live on planet bizarro world with you.
      •  Hey, Hamden, in your "real" world (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit, corvo

        what is the consequence for a plane refusing an order to land?

        Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

        by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:29:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Evidence? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bonsai66, Overseas, Fogiv, emelyn
          The President of the United States has successfully strong armed every nation whose air space lies between Moscow and South America to assassinate the air crew of any plane carrying Snowden that refuses an order to land.
          Every country between Moscow and South America? Really? Slovenia? Ukraine?

          Really?

          And this was done personally by the president, not by the routine machinery of law enforcement?

          And you know for a fact that eg France did not have its own reasons for denying Evo Morales airspace, as they claim?

          If you provide evidence of your claim I will gladly acknowledge it.

          But right now there is so much preposterous in your post that it's not really worth wasting time on.

          Frankly, this just reads like you are pulling a huge CT out of where the sun don't shine.

          •  For fuck's sake, Hamden. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pgm 01, corvo, CroneWit, shaharazade

            Read the goddamned news. Snowden is applying for asylum in Russia because every route between Moscow and South America entails travel through at least one nation that has announced such a flight will be denied permission.

            There is only ONE enforcement tool for prohibiting a plane from violating your airspace. And, as I said above, it AIN'T a fucking grappling hook.

            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:46:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Never mind the routing for a flight (5+ / 0-)

              He can't even get on a plane in the first place.  Lack of passport. No alternative travel documents. It's all well and good for sundry countries to offer him sanctuary, but they don't seem willing to provide the needed documents. Some give the reason he would have to be in their country to apply, other's are just mum and saying in effect "if he figures out some way to show up here we'll consider taking him in" It's all kabuki on their part.

              “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

              by Catte Nappe on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:23:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He can travel on authority of the UNHCHR (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CroneWit, WisePiper

                The UN High Commissioner of Human Rights can declare him a refugee. At that point, countries can agree to accept him or not, but he should be able to leave the airport transit area and board any flight to a country willing to accept him.

        •  Landing elsewhere (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bonsai66, HamdenRice, Overseas, Fogiv, sviscusi

          Or are you one of those American chauvanists that thinks poor backward Europe has naught but one airport?

          What might have a hppened had the Bolivian plane just flown on? Any number of things:

          A) The French could have shrugged and said "we tried".

          B) French/Spanish/Portugese could have waited for the plane to land to re-fuel, then deny it fuel.

          C) They could send a sternly worded letter to bolivai.

          D) Withdraw their ambassador from LaPaz back to Paris and/or

          E) Withdraw the Bolivian ambassador to Paris' credentials and sent him home

          F) Canceled a trade agreement or sale by a French company to Bolivia.

          G) Any number of other options short of the comic book opinion of "shoot down the plane"

          Grow a brain.

          •  WisPiper tellingly ignores the answer to nonsense (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bonsai66, WinSmith, Fogiv

            Noone could have predicted that.

            Off to breakfast.

          •  So, basically you're saying that, (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, CroneWit, shaharazade

            as long as a plane can make it from Moscow to a nation that hasn't closed its airspace, and refuel there, the nations whose closed airspace the plane DOES violate will be satisfied to send a sternly worded letter or temporarily recall their ambassadors?

            Who's the fucking idiot?

            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:06:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think, as usual, WisePiper... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WisePiper, CharlesII, CroneWit

              ...the pudding proves that the wisest and most insightful diary that has yet been posted on the matter of Edward Snowden is HB III's:

              If you want to remain blissfully naive do not read this post

              Believing as I do in the basic goodness of my fellow humans, it is difficult to understand.  I twist and turn in refusal, denial and regret.

              And yet, there it is.

              It ain't called paranoia - when they're really out to get you. 6 points.

              by Jaime Frontero on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:14:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  More accusations of shills (6+ / 0-)

                Anyone who disagrees with my opinion is paid to do so!

                The battle cry of the debate loser.

                •  Says the serial "dissenter" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  WheninRome

                  Who parrots the same distractionary nonsensical bullshit in every pro-Snowden thread.




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

                  by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:49:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I wish that both you and Quicklund would stop (0+ / 0-)

                    ...quarreling.

                    Call Quicklund to task for failing to provide substance. Call him to task for repeatedly taking threads off-topic. But leave off the insults.

                    Please.

                    •  um (0+ / 0-)

                      The above was the first and only comment to him I've posted in your diary.

                      And all I did was point out a bit more bluntly what you just said to me, so I'm not seeing the "insults," I'm calling it as I see it.

                      Apparenly you have things under control, so I'll be happy to defer to you.




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

                      by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:11:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry, there has just been a lot of trash talk (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DeadHead

                        Sorry, there has just been a lot of trash talk on the thread. I'm tired and cranky. I want to discuss real issues, not the kind of fluff that the topic of the interference of the Morales flight got diverted into.

                        The best way to deal with trolls--or even with simple curmudgeons-- is generally just to ignore them. The people who want to portray Snowden as a traitor or claim that his revelations are nothing new or otherwise denigrate those Kossacks who do think this is an important story with more complexity than just good guy/bad guy are losing the argument.

                        That they are losing the argument is not just my opinion. That's the result of polls (see the main post), which show a major shift of concern toward civil liberties since 2010 and rejecting the portrayal of Snowden as just a bad guy.

                        When people are losing arguments, they often distract by starting flame wars. My advice: laugh at them.

              •  Thanks for the link, Jaime (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                WisePiper, DeadHead

                I don't know how much that applies to DK. Sometimes during my Honduras diary days, I felt pretty sure that I was debating members of the State Department. They sure had the talking points down.

                But there are just a lot of very obtuse people, people who think that if they just post their opinion often enough and loudly enough, it will catch on.

                My view is that (a) we learn from our opponents, if only how to rebut what they say. If they don't learn from us, so much the better, and (b) there are lots of people who are undecided but who read posts looking for some insight. Who are they likely to agree with-- someone who is polite, concise, and fair-minded, or someone who just repeats the same old demagoguery again and again?  

                The poll I cite in the post, where American attitudes toward surveillance have radically shifted in favor off civil liberties tells me that the people who are wildly trashing Snowden, whether shills or just dopes, and the US media have been completely ineffectual.

                Truth is the most powerful argument there is. It pays to try to stay on the right side of it.

        •  violating France's sovereignty by (6+ / 0-)

          flying into its airspace would  create a diplomatic row.

          But on DK, we go for "France is pissed about spying" to "who cares about France" to "venezuela grants asylum so all nations must give safe passage"

          "

          "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:18:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Same question to any kossacks who (9+ / 0-)

        uprate HamdenRice's faux outrage:

        What happens if a plane refuses the order to land?

        You think that nation says, "Well, alrighty, then. Sorry to have inconvenienced you. Please enjoy the rest of your journey through our airspace, and we look forward to threatening you again."

        In reality, you refuse the order to land, you get your ass blown out of the sky.

        Own it.

        Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

        by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:39:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's good to know -- (0+ / 0-)

        that the folks of the DKos Right know for sure what the Obama administration has doubtless classified as a state secret.

        "It's not my fault reality is marxist." - Che Guevara

        by Cassiodorus on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:25:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Intellectual integrity does not equal these: (4+ / 0-)
      The President of the United States has successfully strong armed every nation whose air space lies between Moscow and South America to assassinate the air crew of any plane carrying Snowden that refuses an order to land.
      The President of the United States has successfully strong armed every nation whose air space lies between Moscow and South America to assassinate the air crew of any plane carrying Snowden that refuses an order to land.
      What is NOT debatable is that President Obama has ordered a hit on Snowden and any air crew that chooses to assist him in his pursuit of political asylum.
      The US has the ability to kill anyone it wants at nearly any time. There is nothing intellectual or factual about these claims, nor do I think you know what the definition of 'assassination' means, unless you are using the incorrect word for what you mean in order to heighten tensions.

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

      by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:42:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  An 'ability to kill (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit

        anyone it wants' that is being demonstrated daily by our government. The definition of assassination is just that assassinating people who the spooks and the president decide are enemies of the state, possible terrorist's aiders and abettors or future radicalized extremists.

        No due process no rights just  flat out killing them. These killers have no qualms about 'collateral damage' humans that just happen to be killed while going after their target. US citizens are not exempt from assignation under our secret laws that are protecting us all.  

        •  So if all that is true then there couldn't (0+ / 0-)

          possibly be a 'hit out on' Snowden, right? Because there wouldn't still be a Mr. Snowden.

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

          by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:29:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The flimsy curtain (0+ / 0-)

            that is used to hide what the US government call's national security and the fear narrative that they used to create this shadow government would be 'brought to it's knees'. Killing Snowden at this point would only validate the glimpse he has given the world of what's going on in the name of keeping us safe. Not covert enough too open and revealing.

            Killing an American spook who spilled the beans to the world via a legitimate 'foreign' newspaper while the world is watching is a PR nightmare. At this point our government is nothing but a PR machine that pumps out false fear and propaganda.

            It would validate the whole point of what he and others have revealed. It's 'diplomacy' as practiced by a all too obvious 'security' state that has gone too far. The illusion of legitimacy, the soft glove of lawless aggression would be shattered. Maybe you would not care as you seem to believe that the world is so scary we need to kill and abandon all our human and civil rights but globally it would certainly shatter the fictitious narrative that says this anti-human, anti life, nightmare world is necessary. to protect us from FBI plants with bombs in their underwear.
                     

    •  Cut to the chase: You are an idiot (1+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      USArmyParatrooper
      Hidden by:
      Beelzebud, DeadHead
      o assassinate the air crew of any plane carrying Snowden that refuses an order to land.
      Stopped reading.
    •  Say what? (6+ / 0-)
      The President of the United States has successfully strong armed every nation whose air space lies between Moscow and South America to assassinate the air crew of any plane carrying Snowden that refuses an order to land.
      I think that sentence above should be the dictionary definition of "Hyperbolic."

      Do you seriously believe what you just wrote?

      Really?

      Wow!

      Nothing worth noting at the moment.

      by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:22:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, your turn. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, DeadHead

        Here's the question that everyone, except Quickland, has refused to answer:

        If a plane violates a nation's airspace and refuses a clear order from a fighter jet escort to land, what is the threatened consequence?
        Quickland guessed "sternly worded letters."

        Let's see if you can do better.

        Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

        by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:54:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Quicklund offered you a half-dozen options (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bonsai66, virginislandsguy

          And added teh French diplomatic service could undoutably think of more. They've been at the diplomatic game for a few enturies now.

          So y have been offered any number of diplomatic opotions to your hypothetical diplomatic breach caused by the hypothetical Bolivian plane. And yet yo contiue to insist France would do only one thing: shoot down the Bolivian plance.

          As HamdenRice pointed out, you have destroyed your credibiity on this issue.

          •  You offered a range of nonsensical (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, DeadHead

            options, the least ridiculous of which was that the offended country might withdraw from a trade agreement.

            Guess what? Bolivia said to Joe Biden, "Fuck your $25 million. Keep it, and WE'LL give YOU that amount to educate your citizens."

            And again, when that fighter escort waggles its wings, it's NOT a threat there'll be diplomatic consequences.

            Grow up, and what's with the royal 3rd person address? Go finish your breakfast.

            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:53:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  If a plane files a flight plan... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Quicklund, virginislandsguy

          over another country, then takes off without getting approval for overflight of that said country, then there is criminal negligence on the part of that flight crew.

          It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with whether the plane is private, commercial or governmental.

          If you don't get approval to fly over another countries airspace, (regardless of why and before you attempt to do it), and then fail to obey that country's attempt to get you to land if you do, then you absolutely risk getting shot down.

          Seriously, you don't seem to know anything about how international aviation works, do you?

          Nothing worth noting at the moment.

          by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:26:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you for having the integrity to (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CroneWit, DeadHead, Pale Jenova, ask

            validate what I've been saying: The threatened penalty for refusing a fighter escort's order to land is to be shot down.

            Now, please try to persuade your fellow Obama defenders to stop pretending otherwise.

            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:37:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

              If I fired up my 150 and tried to overfly Cuba, without permission, and then refused to land when told to do so by Cuban authorities, then they would have the right, (and be in the right), if they chose to shoot me down.

              And the reverse would be true if someone from Cuba tried to do the same to the US.

              Permission to overfly is never automatic.  And if you don't have it, you'd better damn well divert, or land if told to do so.

              This is not controversial.  

              But you seem to think it is.  Which is why I concluded that you actually understand nothing about how international aviation is done.  Absolutely nothing.

              But that doesn't seem to stop you from having an opinion on it, even though you have no idea how it works.

              Nothing worth noting at the moment.

              by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:49:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Which brings us back to the obscenity of (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CroneWit

                the U.S. and its client states threatening to shoot down the plane of any nation assisting Snowden in his legitimate pursuit of political asylum.

                I've got no issue with you. You think that's OK, and you're being honest about it. My issue is with all the yahoos who're pretending that violating a nation's airspace in defiance of an order not to do so does NOT entail the threat of being shot down.

                Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:58:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  They didn't threaten to shoot down the plane. (0+ / 0-)

                  Please provide a link to where that was claimed.  

                  They refused entry to their airspace because the air crew took off before the flight plan and entry into another sovereign country's airspace was approved.

                  If anything, the aircrew were stupid and negligent.

                  But none of this is making a dent with you, is it?

                  My mom passed on a sage bit of wisdom to me when I was in my 20s, a long time ago:  "A wise person knows what they don't know, before they open their mouths."

                  I'm beginning to think that your moniker is a bit ironic.

                  Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                  by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:06:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not talking about what happened with (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CroneWit, DeadHead

                    the Morales flight. I'm addressing the current situation (and have been since my parent comment). As I noted above, Snowden is applying for asylum in Russia because every route between Moscow and South America entails travel through at least one nation that has announced such a flight will be denied permission.

                    I'm saying that the threatened penalty for any plane that violates the airspace of a nation that has denied permission to cross is to shoot that plane down.

                    You've repeatedly agreed with that. It's your allies in this thread who're denying reality.

                    Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                    by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:18:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yep. If someone violated our airspace... (0+ / 0-)

                      without permission and refused to land when ordered to do so, we'd have every right to shoot them down.

                      Any aircrew that attempted to do so, would be criminally negligent and should have all their credentials revoked.  Any aircrew that attempted this on a plane with Snowden onboard, regardless of the reason why such approval was not given, should not be in the aviation profession, since they would be risking not only their own lives, but the lives of their passengers.

                      Without question.

                      Again, this is not, in any way controversial.

                      Your attempt to extend it into some type of nefarious and twisted thing is downright silly.

                      If a sovereign country wants to deny overflight by a plane that is carrying Snowden, then they have every right to do so.  If they are doing so because of diplomatic pressure from the US, then that's something that Snowden should have thought about before he tried to run.

                      That's how I know that he didn't really think this through and plan very well.  Typical utopian libertarian.  That Ayn Rand disease can be nasty in young men.

                      He's been very sloppy, and planned his run from the US very, very poorly.

                      But he's just a young kid, who thought he understood how the world really worked, when if fact he was completely wrong.

                      Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                      by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Again, thank you for affirming my (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DeadHead

                        assertion as to the threatened consequences for assisting Snowden in any attempt to fly to asylum through closed airspace.

                        Returning to the overriding circumstance here, Snowden is a man accused of unauthorized release of classified info which details surveillance activities of the NSA and its hundreds of thousands of private sector contractors.

                        Yes, a nation has the right, recognized by international law, to shoot down a plane that violates its airspace.

                        Yes, a cop has the legal right to shoot a fleeing suspect, even if that individual's suspected crime is not a violent one.

                        I know where I stand.

                        I'm challenging the participants in this thread to declare where they stand.

                        Is it OK to threaten Snowden and his assisting air crew with death here?

                        I say no.

                        Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                        by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:58:44 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Gotcha. (0+ / 0-)

                          Under your brand new rules then:

                          1. No sovereign country has a right to control their own airspace.

                          2. No country can deny the right of anyone else from flying over their airspace for any reason.

                          3. No country can do anything about any plane flying in their airspace except ask them to land, and if they refuse, then give up and let them continue on.

                          Interesting idea.  I expect that your new rules would apply to drones as well, right?

                          BTW, in case you didn't know, not a single country in the world would agree to your new rules of international aviation.

                          Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                          by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:30:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Nope. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            My sole contention IS, and has been throughout, that the U.S. and its client states are acting immorally in denying Snowden the opportunity to fly to a country willing to grant asylum, under threatened penalty of being blown out of the sky.

                            It's that simple.

                            And it's that reprehensible.

                            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:36:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, it's not that simple at all. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jiffypop

                            And I'm ending the discussion here.  You don't seem to understand that I hold any aircrew criminally negligent for even attempting to knowingly enter a sovereign country's airspace without permission, and then refuse to land when ordered to do so.

                            He's a scoop for you:  Every single pilot that I know would land if ordered to do so.  And any pilot with professional ethics would do the same.

                            Only in your twisted hypotheticals would it ever come to "shooting" anyone down.

                            Every single pilot would land when ordered to do so without being threatened with being shot down.  

                            Ergo, there is no actual "threat" of being shot down.

                            Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                            by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:45:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Have a good day. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            Bearing witness to your obtuseness re the immorality of closing airspace to Snowden in the first place has been fascinating.

                            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:53:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Likewise your low opinion... (0+ / 0-)

                            of the professional ethics of pilots.

                            Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                            by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:05:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not once have I blamed the pilots here. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            Enforcing a no-fly order is not their decision.

                            (That was even weaker tea than the other positions you attempted to ascribe to me upthread.)

                            Take care.

                            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:23:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, it's as weak as saying... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jiffypop

                            "closing airspace" equals "threat to shoot down."

                            In order to get to that point, it would require a pilot to have no professional ethics.

                            Ergo, you must assume that the pilots involved would be criminally and professionally negligent.

                            That is what would be required for "closing airspace" to equal "threat to shoot down."

                            There is no other option that I can see.

                            Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                            by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:34:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Just fucking lovely. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            Don't violate our closed airspace, and we won't shoot your ass down. No threat there. Now you're just being comical. (And for a while there, you were actually exhibiting some integrity when you acknowledged the physical threat.)

                            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:43:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

                            My disagreement with you must be due to my lack of integrity.

                            It's apparent that you are not able to follow the logic of my argument.

                            I should have ended this discussion earlier as I intended above.  I allowed myself to get sucked back into this argument with a black and white ideologue.

                            My mistake.

                            Please.

                            Have the last word.

                            I know that you can't resist.

                            Nothing worth noting at the moment.

                            by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:07:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            I'll take it.

                            Our first few exchanges on this subject were productive. Neither convinced the other with respect to the propriety of nations closing their airspace to Snowden to thwart his attempt to gain asylum, but both of us acknowledged, repeatedly, that the threatened consequence for any plane that violated that closed airspace was to be shot down.

                            In our last few exchanges here you've decided to adopt the whac-a-mole strategy. It's a strategy that's intellectually bankrupt, and one that your fellow administration apologists are only too happy to employ.

                            Not gonna play. I'm outta here.

                            Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                            by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:21:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  I know what this means, do you? KAL007 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bonsai66

              No need to type this up on teh Google for me. Thirty years old but such a big even the flight code is still on the tip of my tongue.

              Anyone who suggests France would willingly suffer international pariah status resulting from a shoot-down of a foreign Presidential aircraft is ignorant of the real world.

              Anyone who thinks France would suffer pariah status on behalf of the USA is ignorant of France.

              Anyone who insists the only way of enforcing unauthorized violation of airspace is to shoot down the aircraft is ingorant of the real world.

              Anyone who continues to insist a shoot-down is the one and only option after being led by the hand to numerous alternatives, has traveled beyond ignorance into irrelevance.

              •  You know any military fighter pilots? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                I'd love to hear their response when you assert that an order from them to land can be ignored without physical consequence.

                And, if you're now going to claim that a nation who has denied permission to cross their airspace is NOT going to scramble fighters to confront a violator, it's YOU who's divorced from reality.

                Your denial was, at first amusing. Now it's tiresome in the extreme. Good luck in your continuing efforts to defend the indefensible.

                Take note: If you and I are engaged in a heated exchange, disabuse yourself of the notion that I'm trying (futilely) to win you over. My goal is to persuade the hundreds of non-commenting observers who've yet to make up their minds.

                by WisePiper on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:43:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  That's. not. the. current. discussion. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DeadHead

                Get up to speed.

                What's CURRENTLY under discussion is what the US would do, or persuade/bully/strong-arm its allies into doing, if Snowden were to attempt to fly to any country that has offered him asylum - WITHOUT the protective presence of the head of that state.

                Most of your suggestions get flushed, under that scenario, and the ones that remain are:

                1) Force the plane to turn back.
                2) Force the plane to land at an airport of the armed escort's choosing.
                3) Shoot the plane down.

                In, approximately, that order.

                If you think the US wouldn't do that, consider the tragic Payne Stewart case. All aboard that plane were dead within half an hour of takeoff, due to hypoxia, and the plane was incapable of following its original flight plan or making any course corrections - but no one knew that for sure until later. The plane was paced by a fighter escort who were under orders to shoot it down if it posed any risk to inhabited areas. (It augured in to an empty field, as I recall.)

                But yes, shooting a plane down IS the option of last resort and WILL be used if someone thinks it "necessary".

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

                by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:50:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  People support Obama... (17+ / 0-)

      ...because the Snowden and Assange supporters have eliminated any middle ground for discussion.

      For example, right from the start I agreed there were legitimate policy questions about the authorities granted the NSA.  And I agreed there needs to be an investigation.  If the current laws and authorities are not strict enough to protect constitutional rights, then let's debate changing them.

      However...

      I also believed that Snowden's approach was wrong and he was potentially guilty of a crime.  To date, we still have no idea of the entirety of what he stole.  We do hear Greenwald threaten to use information to harm the USA, so its reasonable to assume such a harm can be real.

      Furthermore, we are still not sure where Snowden was coming from.  He donated to Ron Paul in 2012 and his behavior in seeking relief from regimes that mock freedom causes many to question his motivations.  

      If you express these sort of middle ground views - there are legitimate issues but what Snowden did was wrong - you get called all sorts of names by Snowden supporters.  Fascist!  Stooge of the police state!  And I have never seen such abuse of HRs on DKOS until this issue.  

      Loyal Democrats are being called right wingers for taking the same positition as Obama, Pelosi and Biden.

      Compounding matters are the constant refrains that discussing Snowden, Assange and Greenwalds actions and motivations are a "distraction."  I wonder if people would feel the same if Snowden was a member of the KKK.  Many people feel just as strongly about someone who would donate to a lunatic like Ron Paul.

      So yes, many Democrats are defending Obama.  More strongly than we initially supposed we would because we are being pushed into a corner by all the abuse and demands for group-think.

      "Hidden in the idea of radical openness is an allegiance to machines instead of people." - Jaron Lanier

      by FDRDemocrat on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:54:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even in diaries (14+ / 0-)

        about Snowden, any criticism of Snowden is attacked because discussing Snowden is a "distraction" by an imaginary horde of COINTELPRO-steeped infiltrators who are apologists for Obama AND don't care about NSA abuses.

        The diaries are ABOUT Snowden, written by his acolytes, and yet if anyone comes in with less than adoration, they are accused of making it all about Snowden.

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:01:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just out of curiosity... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CroneWit, DeadHead, Pale Jenova, PhilJD

          Do you know what COINTELPRO was?  

          I resent your statement that I, the diarist you refer to, am an "acolyte" of Snowden. I have repeatedly stated that it is far too early to know whether his actions are good or bad. The diary is clearly not about Snowden, as you falsely state, but about how the US can come out of this with the least damage.

          I try to keep in mind that not everyone knows the history of US intelligence, that it has been used for both very good and very evil things. Reading your post, where you make it clear that you can't even honestly represent what is contained in a public diary, I cannot believe that you understand any of the history of intelligence or what any of the issues are.  

          •  Are we allowed to speculate?? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bonsai66

            You're right, it is far too early to know how far reaching and damaging his classified documents are, and if he'll release this "bomb" when the US apprehends him.

            But with Greenwald's threat yesterday, is it okay for us to then comment on the result of this person's leak?

            Being told we're only allowed to discuss X and Y but not Z by Greenwald and his apologists is lawyerly bullshit.  Of course Snowden is part of the story.  And with his tough talking invective, Greenwald has forced himself into the story as well.

            To pick an historical example, were were allowed to discuss The Weather Underground's tactics against the Vietnam War?  Or were we only allowed to discuss what the Weather Underground was protesting?

            One can be both against the Vietnam War and also against the Weather Underground's decision to set off bombs in public places (albeit with advance warnings).

            Likewise, one can be against the Patriot Act and the NSA overreach and also against Snowden's lawbreaking lone ranger tactics as well.

            The methodology of protest in the public sphere has always been part of the story.  

            Greenwald knows this, of course.  But as a lawyer, what's good for the goose will never be good for the gander.  He was happy to discuss the backgrounds of journalists advocating for the Iraq War to demonstrate how their advocacy and statements could not be trusted.  

            Snowden, with Greenwald's help, is performing a selective leak in service of his ideological agenda.  We are not allowed to see everything he stole.  We have to "trust" his motivations as benevolent.  Therefore he is part of the story.  

            But we're told we cannot discuss him or his motivations, or even how he's handling this grave threat to the government that Greenwald boasts about (and then claims he was "misquoted," lol).

            So no, we are not only here to discuss what his documents have revealed -- information that has been at least partially known since USA Today broke the story in 2006.

      •  Oh the ad homs and hyperbole are nothing new (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bonsai66, sviscusi, virginislandsguy

        What has changes is, on DK there used to be considerable wheat among all the chaff. today the wheat:chaff ratio is much smaller.

      •  We do not "hear Greenwald threaten" (6+ / 0-)

        We do not --

        " hear Greenwald threaten to use information to harm the USA".

        We read Greenwald writing that:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

        Snowden has created some sort of "dead man's switch" - whereby documents get released in the event that he is killed by the US government - was previously reported weeks ago, and Snowden himself has strongly implied much the same thing. That doesn't mean he thinks the US government is attempting to kill him - he doesn't - just that he's taken precautions against all eventualities, including that one (just incidentally, the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint).

        [...]

        That has nothing to do with me: I don't have access to those "insurance" documents and have no role in whatever dead man switch he's arranged. I'm reporting what documents he says he has and what precautions he says he has taken to protect himself from what he perceives to be the threat to his well-being. That's not a threat. Those are facts. I'm sorry if some people find them to be unpleasant. But they're still facts.

  •  "decontextualize in order to sensationalize"? (11+ / 0-)

    I chuckled when reading that because if that's what Reuters did, then it would be a case of Greenwald getting a dose of his own medicine, since that tactic is Greenwald's modus operandi.

  •  The "slow drip" is the wrong strategy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bonsai66, Catte Nappe, Quicklund, sviscusi

    At first I thought the "slow drip" release strategy was a good idea, but now I think otherwise.

    It's diluting the impact of the information and creating too much of a tangled mess of details.  

    Plus, Greenwald really doesn't know how to handle himself politically, so a protracted information dump has another strike against it. Defending oneself = political game over.

    •  Greenwald is all tactics and no strategy. (6+ / 0-)

      I'd love to play him in chess.

      And he doesn't seem to have the ability to reflect on his past actions, in order to optimize his responses in the future responses.  That's why I don't think that he possesses much self-awareness.  He's never, even once, ever admitted that he's been wrong.

      Not once.

      Ever.

      And he's been exactly the same way for years.  He still can't not reflexively, (and bombastically), respond to any criticism rendered in his direction.

      It's almost fascinating.

      Nothing worth noting at the moment.

      by Bonsai66 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:19:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you are wrong for a number of reasons (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CharlesII

      The slow drip enables the churn of the revelations throughout the media and increases the chances that the casual not very political  person becomes gradually exposed over a period of time to the implications of what the NSA is doing regarding their own life. It's called increased awareness. The proof of this is in the change in polls since the revelations began.

      Also, the ridiculous over the top reactions of the US Govt tend to reinforce people's negative view of the whole issue , making the US look like a bully in the eyes of many people all over the world.

      There is also the possibility that some of the information Snowden has given Greenwald are being held in reserve until Snowden has reached a safe haven where he is not so vulnerable to being snatched by a covert CIA rendition unit or a Special Forces operation as in OBL takedown. I doubt very much that the US has drawn the line on using any of these options and further revelations by Greenwald will simply amplify Obama's desire to "keep all options open" in an efort to capture or eliminate Snowden.

      The Fierce Urgency of Later

      by Faroutman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:56:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Two sides to that insurance policy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FiredUpInCA, Bonsai66, Lawrence, Quicklund

    There are plenty of people that would love to see what's in that insurance package.. and they're not american.

    To you, I'm an atheist. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.” ― Woody Allen

    by soros on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:02:57 AM PDT

  •  Noted people praise Glenn Greenwald (16+ / 0-)

    compare the "put downs" of Greenwald here at dailykos with what some noted people say about him

    He published a book in 2008:

    Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics

    Some comments from amazon.com

    “One of the smartest and most important new voices to emerge in politics in years.”
    —Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of Daily Kos and coauthor of Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics
     
    “Those who ignore what Greenwald has to say act at our collective peril.”
    —John W. Dean, former Nixon White House counsel and author of Conservatives Without Conscience
    "I rely on Glenn Greenwald, above all, for understanding the assaults by this administration on the Constitution, and for pointing the way toward regaining a republic.  There's no one whose work has impressed me more."
    —Daniel Ellsberg
    Book releases a year ago:

    With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

    “The most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years.”
    —Bill Moyers
    “Glenn Greenwald is not just the American Left’s most fearless political commentator; his fearlessness is such that he has shifted the expectations for everyone else, too. His rock-ribbed principles and absolute disregard for partisan favor have made U.S. political discourse edgier, more confrontational, and much, much better.”
    —Rachel Maddow
    “The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald’s blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now.”
    —Michael Moore
  •  It's sick that our media focuses on the messengers (9+ / 0-)

    and not on the fucking lawless surveillance state we now live in.

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:07:24 AM PDT

    •  The messengers (6+ / 0-)
      It's sick that our media focuses on the messengers.

      Snowden and Greenwald keep holding meetings with the press and then follow up those meetings with new meetings to clarify their words from previous meetings with the press.

      Both of them could just stop talking and let the disclosures speak for themselves, but neither seem willing to do that.

      For instance, why does anyone need to know where Snowden applied for asylum or hear his statements released through WikiLeaks?

      "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

      by FiredUpInCA on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you're saying that the person who broke (6+ / 0-)

        the story, should really just sit down, shut up, and stop talking, because then the information would get out.

        Is that about right?   The guy that broke the story, should just shut up about the story, because then it's just all about him?   Really?

        How about the rest of the media try doing some journalism, and report on the story, not the reporter who broke it?  

        Without Greenwald, was JR Russert going to break this?   Was Dick Gregory going to blow this whole thing open?   Was Shep Smith going to shine the light on this?   Was Anderson Cooper going to expose it?

        But yeah, the guy that DID break the story should really just shut up, and stop talking, because the rest of the media can't stand someone that shows them up.  

        The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

        by Beelzebud on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:41:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If both of them want to (3+ / 0-)

          stop being misunderstood, or decontextualized or whatever they're claiming this week, they could easily remedy that by stop holding press conferences and just focus on releasing data.

          But that's not what either of them are doing. They don't just focus on releasing data.

          They hold press conferences about themselves.

          "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

          by FiredUpInCA on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:46:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course the propagandists in service to (0+ / 0-)

            the government should be under no constraints as they vilify the messengers and ignore the message. Thank you for pointing out the strategy of the government operatives. How convenient if both Snowden and Greeenwald just shut up as they are being libeled and vilified.

            What Greenwald is doing is called push back and he does it exceedingly well.

            A lie unanswered in the media becomes perceived truth.

            The dialog by both Snowden and Greenwald helps to avoid the story from becoming a mouse being toyed with by the media propaganda mongers.

            The Fierce Urgency of Later

            by Faroutman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:06:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pushback? On his own quotes? (0+ / 0-)

              Okay.

              "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

              by FiredUpInCA on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:40:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Push back on lies or out of context quotes (0+ / 0-)

                Did you see the Pincus article in the Washington Post? Pincus was forced to retract most of the article after Greenwald refuted it.

                There are all kinds of ways people are trying to discredit Greenwald. He would be a fool to just sit and take it.

                The Fierce Urgency of Later

                by Faroutman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:59:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Um yes? (0+ / 0-)
          The guy that broke the story, should just shut up about the story, because then it's just all about him?   Really?
          Yes, he should sit down, shut up and let the NSA debate actually happen.

          That is IF his goal was to expose NSA surveillance for the betterment of the US.

          If his goal was kinda that but mostly to be an international celebrity living in luxury in the country of his choice with little or no consequences to his actions then fine, keep doing press conferences.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:04:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So the guy who broke the story (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beelzebud

            Is now responsible for impeding the discussion he helped start.

            You actually take yourself seriously, don't you?




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

            by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:57:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There would be no "NSA debate" if it weren't for (0+ / 0-)

            him, and frankly I don't see much of a "debate" right now, other than folks like you debating on whether or not he's a traitor.

            The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

            by Beelzebud on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:07:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So it's about him then? (0+ / 0-)

              It doesn't matter if this constant stream of "Snowden asylum watch" is giving the telecom companies a pass, making Snowden generally look terrible and making it very hard to actually debate NSA surveillance.

              I'm not even debating whether he's a traitor. I just don't want to hear about him any more.

              I don't want to hear Glenn Greenwald issuing threats against America on behalf of Snowden. I don't want to hear press conferences about him not getting asylum in the country he wants asylum in.

              I want to actually debate NSA surveillance and possibly reworking or repealing the patriot act.

              When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

              by PhillyJeff on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:55:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Every time I see the apologists swarm (14+ / 0-)

    I think that what Snowden revealed is more important.

    Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:11:14 AM PDT

    •  Where are these (9+ / 0-)

      "apologists"?

      Which comments here are from "apologists"?

      Who are they apologizing for?

      Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

      by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:54:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Answers: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SouthernLiberalinMD

        1) In every "pro-Snowden" thread
        2) The ones going to great lengths to make excuses for...
        3) Obama and his administration




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

        by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:10:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't seen the (or many) excuses (0+ / 0-)

          for Obama.

          In fact, I would bet you that when you go back and look at the comments you think fit that definition, you will see that Obama isn't even mentioned.

          I know that because I rarely even mention Obama in these diaries.

          Yet I'm told repeatedly that saying something negative about Snowden indicates some sort of feeling about Obama.  I'm not sure why that is.  

          I certainly don't think Obama is a saint.  And so ironic to hear all of this in diaries that make every excuse possible for Snowden and won't even address at least the irony of him running to oppressive regimes.

          I've never made excuses for Obama (except that he doesn't seem to get what it looks like to us out here - I guess I see him as less cynical than most do, but not "right" about it), and comments making excuses for Obama are few and far between - I don't recall seeing any, but I suppose I could have missed a couple.

          But I have still been accused of being an obama-bot or a host of other things, including apologist.  Even when I don't mention Obama at all.

          How is it that I can hear my own thoughts, feel what I feel, and you get to tell me I think and feel something different, and then go after me for it?

          I don't have to love Snowden and/or hate Obama to prove I'm sufficiently against the NSA.  

          What I feel about Obama, Snowden, and the NSA are all totally separate, or at least one does not determine the other two, etc.

          Obama: flawed President
          Snowden:  flawed whistleblower
          NSA:  broken, lawless

          See how that goes?

          Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

          by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:26:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've seen a lot of excuses (0+ / 0-)

            I even made a list of them, though there's a few new memes not listed in that link that have popped up since then.

            Look, I don't have anything personal against you, in fact, your username is one of my favorites here, fwiw. ;)

            I get why you might be taking some of this personally, especially in certain diaries. You must understand, however, that many of us who have been supportive of Snowden from the start are "battle weary" from the unrelenting misinformation and distractionary diary disruption that's occurred REPEATEDLY, and is done by some of the same people. It's easier to see happening when you're on the side having to push back on the SAME SMEARS from these SAME PEOPLE in diary after diary after diary.




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

            by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:28:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes. Because DKos uses KNOW what's been stolen (5+ / 0-)

      ...and that inside knowledge informs them of the need to step up the apologia.

      Sound thinking there.

  •  And why would anyone trust Greenwald that this (7+ / 0-)

    is indeed the case? Moreover, his threat in the interview was very clear. Added clarification only makes it somewhat milder. If it's not blackmail, blackmail doesn't exist.

    •  One of the smartest and most important new voices (6+ / 0-)
      “One of the smartest and most important new voices to emerge in politics in years.”
      —Markos Moulitsas Zúniga

      the above was on amazon for his 2008 book

      *
      Here is review of Glenn Greenwald's first book on amazon.com

      5.0 out of 5 stars A bright light in a dark time. May 22, 2006
      By Gerald A. Stewart
      Format:Paperback
      Greenwald has written this scathing indictment of the un-American and Unconstitutional power grab of this administration which has claimed the power to:

      Arrest U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil, declare them "Enemy Combatants" and lock them up indefinitely without charge or access to council.

      Violate Federal Law without Congressional or Judicial oversight.

      Violate signed International treaties against torture or rendition.

      Spy on American Citizens without Warrants in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

      Greenwald builds his case and cites sources from across the political spectrum including a blistering opinion from Justice Scalia that U.S. Citizens can not be declared "Enemy Combatants" because they should instead be charged with Treason and processed by the justice system.

      "How Would a Patriot Act?" is a quick read (123 pages) and is an outstanding resource for anyone who wants to understand how our present Constitutional Crisis evoled and how it compares to previous episodes in our history (Alien and Sedition Act, The Civil War, McCarthyism, Watergate). Greenwald cites The U.S. Constitution, The Federalists Papers, Supreme Court Rulings, and Federal Law to explain and build his case against the Presidents actions.

      After reading this book you will understand why the Presidents appologists have been reduced to defending the administration with the absurd notion that the President is above the law.

      READ THIS BOOK AND PASS IT ALONG...

  •  Reiterating what he said on June 17 (6+ / 0-)
    All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

    Basically Snowden is saying that unless the U.S. government lets him off scott-free, he is going to release everything.

    Snowden has a fear of jail, murder and accountability for breaking laws that he has determined that he is above.

    "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

    by FiredUpInCA on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:41:48 AM PDT

    •  He's saying, 'even if I die, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tool

      the truth will come out.'

      He's saying, 'the truth will come out' because (1) Journalists have the information now and will continue to publish it even if I die', and (2) Even if I die, the truth will be released by the persons holding the dead man's switches'.

      Please try to read more carefully.

      •  He's saying 'even if I am jailed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        richardak, CroneWit

        or if I die this data will be released.'

        The trigger to release everything is if "something" should happen to Snowden--that something being incarceration or death.

        In other words, as long as Snowden is alive, not jailed and in the mood not to release data, he will not ask others to release data.

        What is not clear is who the people are that Snowden has entrusted with data that he, until recently, believed that no one should be entrusted with because it was too invasive and overreaching.

        Nor is it clear if the people that he has entrusted to decrypt his stolen data will wait to do so after he's dead or jailed.

        "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights." (From "You Said a Mouthful" by Bishop Desmond Tutu - South African bishop & activist, b.1931)

        by FiredUpInCA on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:24:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Some people want to hate Snowden (11+ / 0-)

    So they don't care what context it is in.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:48:46 AM PDT

    •  Haters gotta hate, gj, it's what they live for n/t (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gjohnsit, corvo, CroneWit, PhilK

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

      by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:52:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Context? Try rationalization. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WinSmith

      That's what Greenwald is doing.

      He's shit the bed, and now he's trying to reverse the procedure. It ain't going to work.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

      by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:12:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Context (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CroneWit

        This isn't a Republican politician talking about rape again.
           The worst that could happen to that politician is getting voted out of office.

         This is a journalist saying something that is unpopular. And now people want to arrest him alongside of Snowden, not to mention putting aside the 1st Amendment in order to do this.

          I think context (and perspective) is something that people really need in this case.
          People approach this like it is some sort of pro football game. It's not. The 1st and 4th Amendment are at stake here.

        None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

        by gjohnsit on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:23:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Threats requiring that Snowden's ass be kissed (0+ / 0-)

          or else, are going to protect the Constitution?  I don't think so.

          The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

          by richardak on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:41:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not even logical (0+ / 0-)

            You're standing the facts on their head with this statement.

            None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

            by gjohnsit on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:50:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry, but this story has moved on from the NSA (9+ / 0-)

    Any discussion of the real issues and problems are lost in the Snowden sideshow. And a stance that he has more details that will "be very harmful to the US government if they were made public" seems very much like a threat and blackmail to me and--I would suspect--most folks hearing that statement.

    This story is now all about Snowden and his claimed "right" that he should face zero consequences for his actions. That is a very different conversation than one about NSA snooping. And the NSA snooping story is a diversion that covers the bigger problem of corporate capture and takeover of all of our data in both the private sector and in governments through the use of contractors to sweep up, capture and monetize it all

    [Oddly, Snowden seems to think that corporations are the victims of government excess when they are--in fact--the cause of it. I guess that is because Libertarian must  view corporations as always being the good guys and government as always being evil. Whatever.]

    And yet, you claim that "the real danger is that the US government will force Snowden's hand." Really. That is the real danger. I just don't buy it.

    The leak of information by Snowden created a window of opportunity to discuss the expansion of the security state and perhaps do something about it. That window has closed and Snowden shut it. Now all we can talk about is what will happen next to Snowden. It seems that the only option if you're a progressive is to decide if he is just a hero or the greatest hero ever! Question that dogmatic framing and you're some form of a neo-con toady.  It is odd dogma that progressives must cheer the idea that Snowden will damage America if he is not properly celebrated.

    And it seems that celebrating and defending Snowden is the goal now. It is a distraction, but a very useful one for the corporations behind the public sector/private sector invasion of privacy. As long as we talk about Snowden, or even the NSA, we protect their profits.

    Excuse me for not giving a rat's ass about Snowden, what information he has stolen, when he'll release it, or sell it to the Russians, or put it on eBay. It is a sideshow. There are far too many real problems to worry about.

    I no longer care what happens to him one way or another.

    Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

    by dengre on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:53:18 AM PDT

    •   window has closed and Snowden shut it. Really??? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, CroneWit, WheninRome

      the open window has freaked out the beltway

      so the window for discussions on the security state, hidden with secrecy, has now been opened by Snowden, but Snowden has now shut it you claim

      well, not so sure

      lets see how many more powerful people get caught in their lies as new documents are released

      Also, whistle blowers who have been telling us these things for years are now more vocal.

      many of us suspected what was going on. Now we know for sure.

  •  Hmmm (12+ / 0-)
    People who think Snowden is a traitor or that his revelations are meaningless
    So what about people who don't think Snowden is a 'traitor' and don't think his revelations are 'meaningless', but also don't believe everything Snowden has done is 'heroic' or even all of it is 'whistleblowing'?

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

    by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:53:35 AM PDT

    •  Nuance shutdown! [klaxons blare] (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bonsai66, Fogiv, WinSmith

      What you suggest is too much to process for some folkshere.

    •  Those people realize that the issue is 4th (4+ / 0-)

      amendment violations and that's what is important.

      Everything else is for People magazine and not really an intellectual discussion.

      If Snowden turns out to be a dullard or a child-molester or a serial killer or have a huge gambling debt or is a super-nice guy - none of that bears on the facts he has brought to light.

      This is just too much for some to realize and many still like to bitch about pointing versus realize the seriousness of whats being pointed at and all the whining and moaning and carping and harping doesn't reduce that.

      But it does waste amazing amounts of time uselessly.

      •  Yes! (2+ / 0-)

        What's weird is that I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.  Because criticism of Snowden has been conflated with support for the NSA.  

        I have spent a week trying to knock down that straw man.  

        As you say, we can love or hate Snowden and that doesn't change the facts about what the NSA has been up to.

        Exactly the point I've been trying to make.  So not sure where all the bashing and defensiveness comes from.  Nor all the accusations of plants and conspiracies.

        Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

        by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:37:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not picking on you. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead, Tool

          I am sorting the wheat from the chafe and just saying my 2 cents.

          The People magazine comment is a slam on the shallowness of the more rabid anti-snowden cadre.

          Plants and professional trolls or just people with emotional baggage or personality issues I am setting aside and making some attempt to ignore. Some.

          Criticism of Snowden has been conflated with support for the NSA.  
          Since Snowden is a sideshow, supporting him or not has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. all the whining about him totally muddles the conversation, which would appear to be the goal.

          This diary has about 80 recs (maybe) but over 300 comments which tells one it is 90+% useless pie fight, 30% of the comments whining about ad hominem this and inappropriate HR that: the squabbling of children who have the temerity to think of themselves as the adults in the room.

          4th Amendment is the issue, no matter how loud "they" scream.

          •  No that's not the goal (0+ / 0-)

            Especially since all the Snowden diaries are pro Snowden!  So if you go to a Snowden diary and comment on Snowden, how is that some attempt to muddle things.  

            The folks writing pro Snowden diaries are making it about Snowden.  The ones who attack anyone who isn't 100 percent on board with Snowden by saying they must be pro NSA make it all about Snowden.  

            The ones who can't understand that someone can disagree about Snowden but agree about the NSA are making it about Snowden.

            Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

            by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:00:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  How can one be against the things that the NSA is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DeadHead, WheninRome

          doing that people like Snowden have revealed and be against what people like him have done at the same time? This literally makes no sense to me. How can such things be revealed without breaking some laws? You don't have to view him as a hero or approve of everything he's done to support the gist of what he's done here, without which, along with the whistleblowing of others, we would never know about such programs.

          "Heros" rarely fit the John Wayne stereotype (and boy was he a piss poor excuse for a hero in his real life). They're usually a bit more complicated, with appealing and unappealing qualities. Like those slaveowners we owe this country to, or FDR, who interned Japanese-Americans.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:07:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You do realize (0+ / 0-)

            that you contradicted yourself just now, right?

            You said "how can you be against the NSA and be against what he did?"

            but then you said

            "You don't have to view him as a hero or approve of everything he's done to support the gist of what he's done here."

            Then you said that heroes have both appealing and unappealing qualities.

            In other words, you totally agree with me.

            So what's the argument?

            Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

            by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:13:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not contradicting myself at all (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead

              You do understand nuance, don't you, and how people can do heroic things without being a perfect person, no? Heros generally don't come in nice tidy packages, unless they're Hollywood heros, i.e. fake.

              The question of whether he revealed things that needed revealing and that we need to deal with because they're BAD, is IMO separate from the question of whether he also did things he shouldn't have, and maybe has some other credibility problems. I voted for Obama all three times even though each time I did so less enthusiastically. I'd do it again given the choices and situation. But that doesn't mean that I don't object to much of what he's done.

              Anyway, this "Is Snowden a complicated person" debate is so tiresome, and has nothing to do with the real debate over whether what the NSA is doing is right and necessary and lawful and something that maybe we should have problems with.

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:36:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can't even (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kovie

                read the words and know that we're agreeing.

                Totally agreeing.

                Keep arguing, though.  

                Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:14:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was merely objecting to what I read (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DeadHead

                  as your attempt to diminish the importance and courage of what Snowden did by making him out to be some disgruntled hack who just happen to do a good thing. I think that if anything he went from being a hack to a citizen in this.

                  If I did misread you, then I guess I'm a hack. :-)

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:40:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What??!! (0+ / 0-)

                    disgruntled hack?

                    Where in the world did any of that come from??

                    You can take the totality of what I've said about Snowden and never come near anything like that.

                    I do think some people have said something like that though.  I didn't agree.

                    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                    by delphine on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:46:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, many have said that about him, and worse (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DeadHead

                      And we've had some rather nasty fights of late. If I conflated the two, my apologies. I'm just sick of people treating him like the second coming of Benedict Arnold meets the Rosenbergs.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:49:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Hah... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WheninRome

        I suggested "even if he's a child molester" before I read your post, too.

        That kind of allegation, even if it were to be true, has lost some of its usefulness in recent years because of the frequency and ham-handed way the Surveillance Industrial Complex has used it to get out front and vilify people who reveal things they don't like.  Like Scott Ritter (molester), Assange (broken condom raper), Bradley Manning (gay crossdresser), and whatever they have yet to come up with about Snowden's sex life (they've been unusually slow out of the gate on this one).  Any of those things could be true and it still wouldn't change the fact that it's our responsibility to fix the US government when it does bad things, regardless of who tells us about them.

        •  Excuse me, but... (0+ / 0-)

          I've written you about this before and you didn't respond, so once again:

          Scott Ritter was arrested in 2001 for soliciting sex from a minor on the internet, long before he became famous for his WMD talks.  The controversy in 2003 was that his court records were leaked.  While that leak very well could have been political, his conviction was from 2001 when nobody gave a damn about Scott Ritter.  Then in 2009, long after everyone had once again forgotten about Ritter, he was convicted for doing the same thing again.

          Two observations.

          1) If Scott Ritter wants people to stop thinking of him as a sex predator, then he needs to stop trying to pick up and exposing himself to kids.

          2) Once again, excuses for "sex predators we like" come in leaps and bounds.  

          I was also reminded of that a few years later when Julius Assange's rape allegations surfaced shortly after the big wikileaks release.  
          Assange has been releasing stuff about the US since early 2007.  If there was anything noteworthy about that time period, it's that it was a rather lull in publication.  And Assange's well-documented background of aggressive sexual behavior toward women hardly begins in late 2010.

          But hey, I'm sure you know more than the three investigating officers, two prosecutors, one police review board, one judge, the Svea Court of Appeals, the Swedish Supreme Court, the British Lower Court, the British High Court, and the British Supreme Court, right?  Are they all idiots who know less about the case than you, or are they all in on the conspiracy?

          I remember not very long after that when Bradley Manning was arrested, and the news became that Bradley Manning was no hero: he was a wannabe transsexual.
          It's Manning who said that.  Now you're really grasping at straws here.  If a person says that they're TS, that means that it's a government conspiracy to smear them?
          (1:47:01 PM) bradass87: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for "adjustment disorder" in lieu of "gender identity disorder"
          (11:49:02 AM) bradass87: im in the desert, with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors... and the only safe place i seem to have is this satellite internet connection

          (11:49:51 AM) bradass87: and i already got myself into minor trouble, revealing my uncertainty over my gender identity ... which is causing me to lose this job ... and putting me in an awkward limb

          (1:13:10 PM) bradass87: i just ... dont wish to be a part of it ... at least not now ... im not ready ... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life, or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having pictures of me ... plastered all over the world press ... as [a] boy ...
          And on and on.  Personally I find it really offensive, what people like you and Assange are doing, treating any of Manning's mention of a female gender identity as some sort of smear.  It is NOT a smear to be TS if a person says they are, period.   Seriously, in your post you're analogizing someone convicted of picking himself up and exposing himself to kids, someone who's running from charges of rape and molestation.... and someone who says they're TS.  Seriously, in your mind, are these things the same category?  Ugh.
          Heck, Manning's own lawyers are pointing out that Manning is TS in manning's defense.  I'll repeat: in Manning's defense.  Manning's own, personally chosen lawyers.

          Oh, no, but to you and Assange, saying someone is TS is a smear...
          I'm sorry for harping on this, but it's a personal issue to me, this demonization of transpeople.

          •  Y'know, you're starting to sound sex-obsessed (0+ / 0-)

            Could you please change the broken record?

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

            by TheOtherMaven on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:11:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excuse me, but I'm *responding* (0+ / 0-)

              to a person who's claiming a conspiracy to expose sexual issues.  How am I supposed to do that without talking about them?  Euphamisms?

              And it should go without saying at this site, but sadly it doesn't, neither with you nor the GP: Being transsexual is NOT about sex.

    •  I don't see why you couldn't think (0+ / 0-)

      he was a rat for any number of reasons and still support what he has done in this case and the ensuing debate that it has caused.  I'm not sure if that's where you stand Delphine, but fine, I can coexist with that.

      Since Greenwald's initiala article, I think the US government has been actively making Snowden into an international martyr through their own actions.  Even if it should turn out somewhere down the line that Snowden is a child molestor, as disappointing as that would be, it doesn't change the fact that they have made him a bigger focus of international pity and outrage through their irrational ham-handedness that can't help but remind people of the Soviet Union's cold war blunders.

      We started out saying the story isn't about Snowden.  I was one of the guys saying that.  Well... now there are two stories, though, really -- the NSA one, and the Snowden Panic one, and in this second one, which has to be judged based on its own separate merits, the US government is embarrassing us all and reinforcing our worst fears about the kind of country we live in by reminding us of how police states pettily and punitively react when they are politically embarrassed.  The Morales incident being the most obvious example of this.

    •  What does it matter if he's not a hero? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead

      What does anything in this whole situation matter other than what he revealed and its importance? While I don't think that who he is and what happens to him don't matter, they pale in comparison to what he revealed.

      Personally, I think he has more courage than some coward sitting in an air-conditioned trailer remote piloting a drone that kills 30 Afghan villagers because the CIA heard a rumor that one of them might be a "really bad guy". Not only is what the latter does vastly more immoral than anything Snowden did, but the blowback will certainly be far worse.

      But, of course, it's not about Snowden or that "pilot", but these policies.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:02:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  10% information; 90% useless bitch session (4+ / 0-)

    repubbed for the info.

  •  Snowden (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenox, WinSmith

    I have held my tongue for two years just reading the great articles and the liberal minded views that I agree with most of the the time (I'm a socialist in agreement with the Senator from VT, Bernie Sanders).  But as an active duty service member and Psychiatrist, I signed a contract to uphold the constitution and other various documents.  This fella did too and breached the contract as a civilian.  If he is so proud of what he did, why is he seeking asylum?  I agree with MHP of MSNBC, come back and defend yourself.  Bringing harm to ones' country is not American.  And as a member of the military, this is treason on a global scale.  You know how many soldiers I see everyday that have defended this country with PTSD and other ailments manifest from down range (deployment)?  If he deceptively took a job from the government to collect documents to breach secrets, that is a problem not only for the US, but for those soldiers that are infantrymen/women, medics and the lot that I see on a daily basis.  As a soldier you are on missions daily.  Compromising those missions are the last thing that you need, but you prepare.  But having your own try to disrupt the progress is despicable and makes your mission harder or gets you killed.  Come back Snowden and defend yourself..

    Oye...Glenn Beck is an idiot and so is Sister Sarah!!

    by 3O3 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:34:29 PM PDT

    •  3O3, I suggest this article (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3O3

      I suggest reading this article.

      First, though, I think you should be aware that there's almost certainly nothing on the order of sensitivity of troop movements or undercover agents' names in what Snowden has. The NSA does not place agents in the field. It just processes intelligence.

      Now, indirectly, foreign collaborators could possibly be exposed after detailed study. In a few countries, like North Korea, they might be at real risk. But NSA operations are remarkably independent of the need for traditional spycraft.

      Some collection points could go dark. The NSA can barely demonstrate that its massive data collection has produced any results in actual terrorism cases. It seems to be more focused on commercial espionage.  

      Now, turning to why Snowden did not stay in the US. First, he needs time to bring out the information he wants to bring out. If he had dumped it all at once, it would have gotten spun away. But he has a very sophisticated media strategy that has forced his revelations into the news. More to the point, as the MoJo article I linked says, Snowden " knew—as he had long known—that the natural desire to go back to the US and make a stand was beyond foolhardy."

      The treatment to which whistleblowers have been subjected is beyond vile. William Binney's home was stored while he was in the shower. He is an amputee and hardly a danger to anyone. But a gun was held to his head in the presence of his son.

      All of the NSA whistleblowers have been threatened and abused. As Peter van Buren says, Snowden would have been foolhardy not to leave.  

    •  Daniel Ellsberg does not think Snowden (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WheninRome, 3O3

      should come back and defend himself, and I respect Mr. Ellsberg's opinion certainly over MHP's opinion.

    •  Breaking the law to reveal greater lawbreaking (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead

      is wrong? So I guess you reject the American Revolution?

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:53:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, but the American Revolution was by definition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3O3

        treason against the British Empire.

        Do you accept Southern Secession? According to them they were just upholding states rights against federal tyranny. If you're going to break the law to reveal what you think is a greater evil, you're going to get judged by history. Fortunately the South lost, and most people agree they were wrong. We won the Revolutionary War, and most people forget about it but at least from our perspective we were right but not necessarily from Britain's perspective.

        I actually am happy that we're having these discussions about NSA surveillance, or at least we are trying to have them or were having them before we have weekly Snowden/Greenwald press conferences about what countries he may or may not get asylum in.

        When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

        by PhillyJeff on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:15:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huge difference between the American Revolution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3O3

          and the southern secession (please don't dignify it with caps as it doesn't deserve it), in that the former was (in part) about rebelling against actual tyranny, and the latter was about rebelling against imagined tyranny.

          And no, it's not a matter of whose perspective you're looking at each from. No laws were broken or constitutional provisions violated by the north against the south. They just had a problem with the democracy that they voted for in 1789 when it worked against their perceived interests. Whereas George III violated the British constitution in letter and spirit in the various ways recounted in the Declaration of Independence. It's absurd to compare the two this way.

          Obviously Snowden is no Constitutional Congress. But he was exposing what he had good reason to believe were constitutional violations by the NSA, and not merely trying to damage programs he didn't like.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:37:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We decide afterwards what is "actual tyranny" (0+ / 0-)

            What about the various Native American rebellions/conflicts that are mostly forgotten in this country. They were clearly rebelling against actual tyranny, and for the most part they're totally unknown to most people.

            I'm sure if you ask a British person if the American colonies were victims of horrible tyranny in 1786 they'd probably say not really.

            So if you're going to compare Snowden to George Washington or something, what you're really saying is that Snowden is engaged in some kind of traitorous behavior but it's justified in serving a greater good.

            When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

            by PhillyJeff on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 04:51:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is not a subjective question (0+ / 0-)

              What George III did to the colonies was tyranny. Even a lot of English people thought so, including Edmund Burke, hardly a flaming radical liberal. What southern slaveowners were doing to their slaves was tyranny, of a far worse sort. What the US government did to native peoples was tyranny, also far worse. These are all generally settled matters. What part of the suspension of civil rights and liberties could have been reasonably found to not have been tyranny in 1775? How is forcing someone to house troops without their will not tyranny? How is imposing laws on people without their having a say in the matter, even indirectly through electing representatives, not tyranny? Don't pull this "well everything's a matter of opinion" crap, please. That's how liars and deniers challenge global warming. You want to sink to their level?

              As for Snowden, IANAL so I don't know if what he did was technically treason, but it was clearly illegal, but done for what he appears to have believed and which I believe was for justifiable reasons, namely revealing far worse things.

              And the fact that the US has done tyrannical and terrible things to other peoples--some immediately after the Revolution--doesn't change the fact that the colonies were the victims of tyranny themselves back in that era.

              To use a more recent example, the fact that Nazi Germany did horrific things during its 12 years in power doesn't change the fact that Germany got a raw deal in the Treaty of Versailles and was treated unfairly after WWI (which, of course, helped put the Nazis in power--tyranny tends to make its victims tyrants themselves, yet another reason for why it's evil).

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 06:32:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  OH! A motherfucking poll! (4+ / 4-)

    Holy cow! You posted a fucking poll! Well that settles it!

    Despite the fact that I care about secrecy issues, Snowden and Greenwald are goddamned fucking assholes. I don't give a shit what they say.

    •  Explanation for my hide recommendation (0+ / 0-)

      Semblance, I really do not like to issue hide recommendations. There have been half a dozen on this thread alone that probably deserved one, but I resisted the temptation. But I did issue one for your comment, and I want to explain to you why.

      As you indicate, posting a poll does not prove a point. If you want to refute the point that only a minority think Snowden is a traitor and that there has been a radical shift in opinion about surveillance, I would welcome any evidence that you can provide. That's where constructive debate comes from.

      But to meet data with derision, to call people names and think it decides an argument, well, that doesn't cut it on DK. To quote the FAQ: "Any and all insults are HRable."  

      I urge you to read the FAQ, try to understand that the people on the other side of the argument are human beings, just like you, and take it easy on the cuss words.  

    •  Where in the faq does (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emelyn, vcmvo2, mahakali overdrive

      It say insulting greenwald and snowden is hrable? Oh that's right it doesn't say anything about that.

      This space for lease

      by Drewid on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:31:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, it does (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch

        I quoted the FAQ. The FAQ does not state that insults have to be directed at other Kossacks. Granted, many insults directed at opponents of Democrats get passed over because no one wants to defend the people who get insulted. But who would want to read DK if it were just--or even primarily-- insults of Republicans, unsubstantiated by fact of any kind?

        You probably haven't had to host a forum. I have and do. The way to keep flame wars from getting out of control is to insist that people provide substance. Stringing together cuss words is not substance. Letting people do this without saying, Whoa! is not doing them or the forum a favor.

        A Hide Rec is not the end of the world. It's an attempt to ask people to re-examine their behavior.

        •  You deeply misunderstand (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, mahakali overdrive

          the FAQ.

          However, the open derision directed at the diarist with no real value other than to mock seems reason enough to not uprate it.

          But insulting public figures is and always has been fair game.

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:00:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  We can always use the tried and true (0+ / 0-)

            DBAD rule if all else fails, right?

            You appear to be on Hiddens Patrol, and your service is appreciated. Thank you.




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

            by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:16:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bless your heart. (0+ / 0-)

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:18:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  awww (0+ / 0-)

                You busted out your boilerplate reply just for me?

                I'm flattered.

                To the hiddens!!




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

                by DeadHead on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:59:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't know what your fucking problem is (0+ / 0-)

                    But do me a favor and knock off using the fucking Grateful Dead/Jerry references as some kind of flaccid attempt at appealing to my better nature. This is the third or fourth comment in which you've done it. And I'll note your sudden appearance here, just to post that link.

                    Now, considering the fact I didn't know you from a turd on the ground until you popped up in that "pie" diary to help talk shit about me just because your friends were doing it, I would really appreciate it if you'd kindly fuck off.

                    Why? Because deadheads can be assholes, too.

                    I am living proof of the concept, and I'm proud of it. mmkay?

                    Goodbye.




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

                    by DeadHead on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 03:27:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  kind indeed (0+ / 0-)

                      And is noting I just "popped" up a flaccid attempt to accuse me of stalking you might want to parent up and see I was already here.

                      This space for lease

                      by Drewid on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 10:11:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't accuse people of stalking me (0+ / 0-)

                        I get enough of that being directed towards me by your friends.

                        That doesn't change anything else I said in my comment.

                        You think you're being cute. I get that.

                        If there were anything to your "All deadheads are peace-loving happy rainbows and flowers hippies who are never mean people" insinuations other than a dumb fucking sterotype, I might take you seriously and re-evaluate my terrible behavior that, I'll note, RARELY gets me HRed.

                        But there isn't.

                        And I might've even let bygones be bygones had you shown enough integrity to buck the consensus established in that "pie" diary by acknowledging the context surrounding my exchanges with Troubadour -- especially since I presented you with some background and, to either you or someone else in that thread, links to support what I was saying in my defense -- in what was nothing more than a below-the-belt call-out of me for engaging with someone in a thread where you weren't anywhere to be found when it originally went down.

                        But you didn't. You doubled down.

                        So don't expect me to take too kindly when you do the same bullshit days after in YET ANOTHER thread.




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

                        by DeadHead on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:53:58 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  We'll have to agree to disagree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat

            Insulting public figures is fine if there's some substance to the post. We want to give lots of leeway.  

            Let's go to Hunter's diary on trolling in DKosopedia.  To quote,

            What all these things [types of posts] have in common is that they represent content that is irrelevant to the thread, or intentionally disruptive of the goals of the conversation, or seek to poison the atmosphere in which conversation can take place at all. That is trolling.
            ...
            You have a responsibility to act with civility towards others, and Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor and content of conversations.
            One of the examples given of trolling is "Democrates suk."

            Why is that trolling? Because it has no substance. It's an insult with nothing more, just as the FAQ on HRs states. It poisons the atmosphere.  

            And what does the post that I believe is HRable say? To paraphrase--buy paraphrase fairly-- it says "Snowden and Greenwald suk."

    •  Textbook ad hom (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pale Jenova

      You may as well admit to being an authoritarian who judges people on whether or not you like them, not on what they say, because that's LITERALLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:51:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not HRable by any stretch of the imagination (2+ / 0-)

      And I support the NSA/PRISM revelations.

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 07:14:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  so basically it's not refuting (0+ / 0-)

    Greenwald just wants us to focus on what he said just before he made an ass out of himself and took the mask off.

    In the time that I have been given,
    I am what I am
    Shop Kos Katalogue or the Parrot gets it

    by duhban on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:20:36 PM PDT

  •  I remember when the Soviets refused (5+ / 0-)

    to allow Andrei Sakharov to leave the Soviet Union to accept his Nobel Peace Prize and to seek medical help for his ailing wife.  They kept a very tight thumb on Sakharov, and the world protested vehemently against it.

    The Soviets probably had much better reason to fear Sakaharov's leaving their jurisdiction than anybody in the US has to fear Snowden leaving the US.  Wiki:

    Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov... was a Soviet nuclear physicist, dissident, and human rights activist.

    He became renowned as the designer of the Soviet Union's Third Idea, a codename for Soviet development of thermonuclear weapons. Sakharov was an advocate of civil liberties and civil reforms in the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. The Sakharov Prize, which is awarded annually by the European Parliament for people and organizations dedicated to human rights and freedoms, is named in his honor.[1]...

    I doubt Snowden is a premier designer of nuclear weapons.  He was a guy in his 20s who helped the NSA spy on American citizens.  I don't doubt he has a lot of embarrassing information, but nothing that blows up because of radioactive decay.

    Still, we in the US, especially on the left, were horrified at the treatment of Sakharov.  Being a prisoner in your own country because you speak out about human rights seems to be one of the lines that defines totalitarianism from freedom and Sakharov, back then, was an iilustration of that.  Even though he knew everything about how Soviets made nuclear bombs.

    All these people on here protesting about what Snowden COULD know or COULD tell if he WANTED to hurt the US...  We heard all this shit before back in the 70s, but it was the Soviets making the argument, and with a much, much more clear-cut case.  And it was rejected by the world as being inappropriate.  The EU offers each year a Sakharov prize, a prize named after a guy who just incidentally designed the bombs that were pointed at western Europe for decades by the Soviet Union, because of the risks he took in speaking out against Soviet infringements of human rights.

    •  I wish more people knew history (5+ / 0-)

      I don't think anyone can remember how we used to deride the Soviets for spying on their own people and not have a twinge when hearing about how the NSA is collecting records of all electronic messages.

      Or not think of hijackings when we hear of the airplane of a president of a sovereign nation being forced to land and a search being "requested."

      Or visit Wal-Mart and not think of G-U-M with more stuff.

      I guess for people who never lived through it, the strange ways in which the US has started to resemble the USSR elude them.

      •  The USSR was not a corporatocracy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dumbo

        They were totalitarian and with the power in this country in the hands of the few, we have what is being called "soft totalitarianism."  Either way, I don't want it.  We were sold the US Constitution.  I want that, not the thing we got with this latest bait and switch.  As for Snowden, the response is overkill as usual.  He stole documents from the government.  DOJ could have simply gone after him for that felony and asked for his extradition, but no, like what they did with Aaron Swartz, they had to throw everything they could think of at the guy and make it impossible to bring to some sort of resolution.  Manning confessed to breaking the law.  Snowden broke the same laws.  It's this overwhelming need to be J. Edgar Hoovers and charge people with being spies that is so over the top.  

        Shine like the humblest star.

        by ljm on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 04:24:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Remember Animal Farm (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dumbo, WheninRome, Alumbrados

          It ended with the farmers and the pigs looking exactly alike.

          Indeed, China is a good example of how a communist party can administer a capitalist state. The systems converge with the centralization of power. It doesn't matter whether people get their power by virtue of being top dog in the party or by ownership of shares. Once the number of people who have working control falls to the level of a small city, and they have essentially permanent positions, they in effect have separated themselves from We the People.

          I do agree that we need to return to the Constitution. The people who are making laws do not accept the plain text of the Bill of Rights as being supreme. It should be enough to say that people have a right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without arguing whether e-mail is a private or public communication. If it were public, we'd do it through blog posts, right?  

    •  Of course, Snowden was allowed to leave, (0+ / 0-)

      having been trusted with classified info, and then betrayed that trust.   And even if you are only concerned what he could do, Greenwald says he's actually got damaging stuff.

      So I'm not really seeing the parallel.  

      "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 Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:36:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Egg, JekyllnHyde, paradox, cslewis, nota bene, cioxx, glitterscale, msl, theboz, wytcld, sphealey, Shockwave, LynChi, Wintermute, genethefiend, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, TheMomCat, TracieLynn, Athenian, Einsteinia, whenwego, ask, chechecule, Arun, taonow, ovals49, psnyder, businessdem, bula, cosette, Calidrissp, KateCrashes, ybruti, xxdr zombiexx, nailbender, soros, humphrey, 3goldens, jrooth, LakeSuperior, qofdisks, CTPatriot, unclejohn, corvo, YucatanMan, Sun Tzu, Jaime Frontero, RichterScale, Sandino, Tool, LieparDestin, Tunk, WisePiper, peacestpete, Indiana Bob, kovie, Sanuk, koNko, sailmaker, blueoasis, Blue Wind, triv33, praenomen, MJ via Chicago, gooderservice, Sagebrush Bob, midwesterner, profh, James Hepburn, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Cassiodorus, shaharazade, Johnathan Ivan, Little, ammasdarling, pgm 01, BruceMcF, CTDemoFarmer, dclawyer06, artisan, martyinsfo, leonard145b, madgranny, Don midwest, hurdger, kdnla, also mom of 5, poligirl, Aureas2, Ocelopotamus, hwmnbn, Tam in CA, 3rdOption, lenzy1000, priceman, protectspice, Rhysling, Rick Aucoin, eltee, shopkeeper, Enzo Valenzetti, flitedocnm, serendipityisabitch, The Free Agent, Klaus, Johnny Q, nosleep4u, indubitably, Barbara Marquardt, swale44, enhydra lutris, DRo, SouthernLiberalinMD, Take a Hard Left, BlueDragon, quill, DeadHead, Williston Barrett, orestes1963, congenitalefty, Horace Boothroyd III, radical simplicity, New Minas, madcitysailor, Dumas EagerSeton, Chaddiwicker, Panacea Paola, TheMeansAreTheEnd, Alhambra, PALiberal1, JosephK74, Demeter Rising, ziniko, Patricia Lil, Kombema, OldSoldier99

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site