Something to think about for those tearing up Snowden

[Marrah_G]

Those calling him a liar, or trying to tear apart his history seem to have missed one thing.

The Administration is not questioning his background or even saying what he leaked was untrue. They are defending the legality of the spying and going after Snowden for releasing the classified information.

By reacting this way you come across as cheerleaders, as fans rather then as thinking rational adults.

If you agree with the spying, datamining, collection of emails, etc then just say so and argue your position.

If you believe what he did was treason then just say so and argue that position.

Trying to make him into some sort of RW devil or lying CTer just really cheapens the whole discussion on what is a pretty darn important issue.

[morningfog]

1. I wish they would just come out and say the only thing they are against is

anything that could possibly hurt Obama.

[Peregrine Took]

2. I do not understand the blind following of this terribly flawed man.

Can he do nothing wrong in their eyes?

I bet he, secretly, scorns them.

[Myrina]

6. Can't bear the thought of not having a hero anymore ...

.... like a kid who finds out the Wizard of Oz really IS a just a man behind the curtain.

[BrotherIvan]

14. The BOrG seems to be a small but vocal group

Yet they crash every thread and all the energy that could be put toward finding unity of purpose and solutions is spent arguing with them. I admit, sometimes the things I read are mind-boggling, and it's almost like watching a train wreck, you can't look away. I want to find out how that twisted logic could actually exist in someone's mind and come out as actual words. I felt the same way the first time someone tried to explain to me that dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden and the world was 6000 years old. I must have looked like a confused puppy with that huh? look think it burned out about a million synapses.

But they continue on like elderly hall monitors who finally get to be the cheerleaders. Scolding and shaming, dismissing and whining about meanies and haters by turns. It's the last bastion of the true believer. They are unwilling to hear a single word of criticism. First Obama himself is powerless, then they whinge about any criticism of the administration as if that directly undermines the man himself. For some reason, their very identity is wrapped up in Obama worship and they will not let it go for blood nor money.

They use the word "liberal" and "professional left" as slurs and accept all authoritarianism and corpo-fascist policies which makes me wonder why those chose to be Democrats in the first place. It's all so bizarre. If someone has some insight, I'd love to hear it.

[OnyxCollie]

25. Here's some insight.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.

Intolerance of Ambiguity

Frenkel-Brunswik’s work on intolerance of ambiguity was
closely related to research on the authoritarian personality, but it
was distinctive with regard to methodology and content. In an
abstract published in 1948, she reported a study of ethnic prejudice
involving the attitudes of adults and children (9 to 14 years old).
Frenkel-Brunswik (1948) argued that intolerance of ambiguity
constituted a general personality variable that related positively to
prejudice as well as to more general social and cognitive variables.

~snip~

Frenkel-Brunswik (1949, 1951) developed further the theory of
ambiguity intolerance and elaborated the antecedent conditions of
this psychological disposition and its manifold consequences. At
the time, ambiguity intolerance was viewed in Freudian terms as
stemming from an underlying emotional conflict involving feelings
of hostility directed at one’s parents combined with idealization
tendencies. Although stable individual differences in the intolerance
of ambiguity have been observed across many
generations of researchers and participants, theoretical explanations
have changed somewhat. Anticipating current perspectives
on uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001; Sorrentino & Roney,
2000; Wilson, 1973b), Budner (1962), for example, defined intolerance
of ambiguity as “the tendency to perceive ambiguous
situations as sources of threat” (p. 29).

Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and motivational
tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead people
to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to
impose simplistic cliche´s and stereotypes. In a review of research
on ambiguity intolerance, Furnham and Ribchester (1995) provided
the following list of consequences of this tendency:

Resistance to reversal of apparent fluctuating stimuli, the early selection
and maintenance of one solution in a perceptually ambiguous
situation, inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits in
the same person, acceptance of attitude statements representing a
rigid, black-white view of life, seeking for certainty, a rigid dichotomizing
into fixed categories, premature closure, and remaining closed
to familiar characteristics of stimuli. (p. 180) (p. 346).

...

“Behavior results from a process that involves, or functions as it entails, conscious
choice” (Monroe & Maher, 1995). These choices are developed through a method by which the
actor’s preferences are ordered and evaluated to determine which will provide the greatest utility
and what course of action should be taken to achieve them (Monroe & Maher, 1995). These
preferences include a predilection for survival (Chatterjee, 1972; Monroe & Maher, 1995).
Vague and arbitrary, these preferences are shaped through the acquisition of information
(Jost et al., 2003) from opinion leaders whose function is to attach idea-elements together
(Converse, 1964).

This process of acquiring information from authoritative sources to satisfy preferences
which include survival is described as laying the foundation for a belief system (Converse, 1964;
Kruglanski & Thompson, 1999a, 1999b as cited in Jost et al., 2003; McGuire, 1985, as cited in
Jost et al., 2003). Converse (1964) and Kunda (1990, as cited in Jost et al., 2003) suggest that
this belief system is regulated by multiple constraints. The constraints offer a probability that a
specific attitude held in a belief system will result in certain other attitudes being held (Converse,
1964). These constraints are identified as logical, psychological, and social (Converse, 1964).
Jost et al. (2003) further expand on the concept by describing these constraints as existential
(fear, curiosity), epistemic (authoritarian, liberal), and ideological (group dominance,
egalitarianism). According to Jost et al. (2003), belief systems fulfill psychological needs.

Within the constraints, belief systems provide a principled doctrine by which new
information obtained is compared to prior associations in order to choose a course which
provides the greatest utility (Jost et al., 2003). However, these belief systems do not operate in a
vacuum; uncertain conditions and numerous variables can influence personal motivations by
invoking emotional responses, leading to a reformulation of logic that while not syllogistically
sound, is principled nonetheless (Jost et al., 2003).

Information gathering in early childhood requires the formation of relationships (Weber
& Federico, 2007). Attachment theory states that relationships are sought in order to reduce
anxiety and provide a sense of security (Sroufe & Waters, 1977, as cited in Weber & Federico,
2007). Successful proximity-seeking efforts create a secure attachment style, inspiring selfconfidence,
curiosity and an openness to new experiences (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978, as cited in Weber & Federico, 2007). Failed proximity-seeking efforts result in anxiety
stemming from the lack of security, compounded by distress over the failure to establish a
relationship (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, as cited in Weber and Federico, 2007). Recurring
failure or inconsistency (Ainsworth et al., 1978, as cited in Weber & Federico, 2007) in
proximity-seeking efforts creates two insecure attachment styles; anxious and avoidant (Weber &
Federico, 2007).

Anxious attachment style is associated with fixations on proximity-seeking and emotional
support (Weber & Federico, 2007). Avoidant attachment style abandons proximity-seeking and
instead relies on self-dependence to control anxiety (Weber & Federico, 2007). Brennan, Clark,
& Shaver (1998, as cited in Weber & Federico, 2007) have determined that anxious and avoidant
attachment styles in adults manifest themselves as either elevated states of arousal with a fixation
on close relationships, or as an emotional disconnect with an aversion to close relationships,
respectively.

Duckitt (2001, as cited in Weber & Federico, 2007) proposes that childrearing practices
lead to the development of personality traits which endorse world views that form ideology.
Children who have attained a secure attachment style are open to new information more than
those with either of the two insecure attachment styles (Cassidy, 1986, as cited in Weber &
Federico, 2007), as well as being less dogmatic and less reliant on ethnic stereotypes
(Mikulincer, 1997, as cited in Weber & Federico, 2007). Additionally, Mikulincer & Florian
(2000, as cited in Weber & Federico, 2007) have shown that secure attachment styles “mitigate
the effect of mortality salience on the denigration of moral transgressors” (p. 394).

It has been demonstrated that children who have attained insecure attachment styles later
as adults develop Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) ideologies, in which the world is viewed as a
dangerous place (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt & Fisher, 2003, as cited by Weber & Federico, 2007),
or Social Dominance Order (SDO) ideologies, in which the world is viewed as a competitive
jungle (Duckitt, 2001, as cited by Weber & Federico, 2007). RWA’s are defined by a deference to
authority figures, an endorsement of severe punishment by authority figures, and a high degree
of conventionalism (Altemeyer, 2006). SDO’s differ from RWA’s in that rather than embracing
authoritarianism as a means of protection against an out-group which threatens society, SDO’s
feel that society has already fallen and that only the strong shall survive, prompting group
domination, punishment, and humiliation against out-groups (Altemeyer, 1998). Altemeyer
(1998, as cited in Jost et al., 2003) and Pratto, Sidanious, Stallworth & Malle (1994, as cited in
Jost et al., 2003) have shown that SDO’s correlate with Republican party identification.

In response to criticism that scales of authoritarianism neglected left-wing personalities,
Rokeach (1960, as cited in Jost et al., 2003) developed a scale of dogmatism which included
measures of logically contradictory beliefs and denial of contradictions in belief systems.
According to Rokeach:

All belief-disbelief systems serve two powerful and conflicting sets of
motives at the same time: the need for a cognitive framework to know
and to understand and the need to ward off threatening aspects of
reality. To the extent that the cognitive need to know is predominant
and the need to ward off threat is absent, open systems should
result. . . . But as the need to ward off threat becomes stronger, the
cognitive need to know should become weaker, resulting in more
closed belief systems (p. 67, as quoted in Jost et al., 2003, p. 346).

Thus, closed belief systems reduce ambiguity-induced anxiety by satisfying the need to know
(Rokeach, 1960, as cited in Jost et al., 2003).

Understanding of issues and concepts is dependent upon the strength of the connotation
associated with them, as well as effectiveness of the constraints by which the referred issues and
concepts operate (Converse, 1964). In his research, Converse (1964) tests the hypothesis that if
one idea-element in the belief system should change, an individual must either change his
position on the issue or change his position on the party. Examination reveals a majority of the
population sampled are unable to express an understanding of the constraints affecting political
parties and issues without being prompted by political elites (Converse, 1964). Furthermore, the
majority of the population view the treatment they and other groups received from political
parties as their primary means of identifying parties (Converse, 1964).

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.
Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. Manitoba: University of Manitoba.
Chatterjee, P. (1972). The classical balance of power theory. Journal of Peace Research, 9(1), 51-61.
Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
Monroe, K.R. & Maher, K.H. (1995). Psychology and rational actor theory. Political Psychology, 16(1), 1-21.
Weber, C., & Federico, C. M. (2007). Interpersonal attachment and patterns of belief. Political Psychology, 28(4), 389-416.

...

“There Must Be a Reason”: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification
http://sociology.buffalo.edu/documents/hoffmansocinquiryarticle_000.pdf

One of the most curious aspects of the 2004 presidential election was the strength
and resilience of the belief among many Americans that Saddam Hussein was linked to
the terrorist attacks of September 11. Scholars have suggested that this belief was the
result of a campaign of false information and innuendo from the Bush administration.
We call this the information environment explanation. Using a technique of “challenge
interviews” on a sample of voters who reported believing in a link between Saddam and
9/11, we propose instead a social psychological explanation for the belief in this link.
We identify a number of social psychological mechanisms voters use to maintain false
beliefs in the face of disconfirming information, and we show that for a subset of voters
the main reason to believe in the link was that it made sense of the administration’s decision
to go to war against Iraq. We call this inferred justification: for these voters, the fact of the
war led to a search for a justification for it, which led them to infer the existence of ties
between Iraq and 9/11.

~snip~

In this article we present data that contest this explanation, and we develop
a social psychological explanation for the belief in the link between Saddam
and Al Qaeda. We argue that the primary causal agent for misperception is not
the presence or absence of correct information but a respondent’s willingness to
believe particular kinds of information. Our explanation draws on a psychological
model of information processing that scholars have labeled motivated reasoning.
This model envisions respondents as processing and responding to information
defensively, accepting and seeking out confirming information, while ignoring,
discrediting the source of, or arguing against the substance of contrary information
(DiMaggio 1997; Kunda 1990; Lodge and Tabor 2000). Motivated reasoning is
a descendant of the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger
and Carlsmith 1959; Kunda 1990), which posits an unconscious impulse to
relieve cognitive tension when a respondent is presented with information that
contradicts preexisting beliefs or preferences. Recent literature on motivated
reasoning builds on cognitive dissonance theory to explain how citizens relieve
cognitive dissonance: they avoid inconsistency, ignore challenging information
altogether, discredit the information source, or argue substantively against the
challenge (Jobe, Tourangeau, and Smith 1993; Lodge and Taber 2000; Westen
et al. 2006). The process of substantive counterarguing is especially consequential,
as the cognitive exercise of generating counterarguments often has the ironic
effect of solidifying and strengthening the original opinion leading to entrenched,
polarized attitudes (Kunda 1990; Lodge and Taber 2000; Sunstein 2000; Lodge and
Taber 2000). This confirmation bias means that people value evidence that confirms
their previously held beliefs more highly than evidence that contradicts them,
regardless of the source (DiMaggio 1997; Nickerson 1998, Wason 1968).

~snip~

We chose to focus on Republican partisans because of the well-documented
partisan difference in the perception of the validity of this link. We assumed
that Democratic partisans would not have a strong desire to defend the Bush
administration on this issue, thus severely reducing the variation we would
capture in responses. Our choice of subjects means that we are investigating how
partisanship produces and reinforces political (mis)information. Our choice of
subjects should not be taken to imply that the processes we are examining here
are particular to conservatives: we expect that, had we conducted this study in
the late 1990s, we would have found a high degree of motivated reasoning
regarding the behavior of President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.
Previous research on motivated reasoning has found it among respondents of all
classes, ages, races, genders, and affiliations (see Lodge and Tabor 2000).

[BrotherIvan]

43. Thank you for this very interesting info

I just had a great discussion with my partner about it. It does explain a lot and I saw things in myself as well. But like many others, especially in the gun debate, I am learning that the authoritarians or those who live in so much fear and only care for themselves should not be listened to in a civic discussion. They only hold progress back and no good has ever come from it.

[JDPriestly]

64. Fascinating. So what about people who love and try to

seek out ambiguity?

I notice that there are people in religions and cults and spiritual movements who will make the simple practice, say, of yoga, into a rigid belief system while there are others who dabble and cross from one "belief" to another believing all of them at once. That fascinates me because people with these very different belief structures often belong to the same groups or "believe" the same things. Some of us seem to have the tendency to believe things that other people find to be contradictory. I wish someone would do a study on this phenomenon.

That is, I find the person who is a fundamentalist Christian except that he or she believes in evolution or the person who drives a huge gas-guzzling SUV but talks about climate change and global warming at the same time to be very interesting. What is it that causes us to think or believe in illogical, incompatible constructs? We probably all have some areas in which we believe contradictory "facts."

I'm talking about the "he loves me; he loves me not" paradigm.

[OnyxCollie]

80. Vegetarians who eat chicken.

http://wikisum.com/w/Converse:_The_nature_of_belief_sys...

In Brief

A great majority of people neither adhere to a full, complete set of beliefs which produces a clear ideology nor do they have a clear grasp of what ideology is. This is measured by a lack of coherence in responses to open-ended questions. Ideology of elites is not mirrored by the masses and voter revolt to a political party does not reflect ideological shifts.

Converse analyzes open-ended interview questions to measure conceptualization of ideology. He concludes that the liberal-conservative continuum is a high level abstraction not typically used by the man in the street because of response instability and lack of connections made between answers. There is no underlying belief structure for most people, just a bunch of random opinions. Even on highly controversial, well-publicized issues, large portions of the electorate do not have coherent opinions. In fact, many simply answer survey questions as though they are flipping a coin.

Though some political sophisticates do structure their opinions in a larger ideological framework, such structure is rare. This level of political sophistication (one's "level of conceptualization&quot is correlated positively with the respondent's level of education, degree of political involvement, and amount of political information.

Key points: Most people do not have strong belief systems; that is, they do not think ideologically. A minority of people have fixed preferences and answer survey questions consistently, but most simply give random answers. Most people do not interpret politics through an ideological lens.

http://caracaschronicles.com/2007/10/23/philip-converse-the-nature-of-belief-systems-in-mass-publics-2/

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Alcibiades/28

[chervilant]

106. This is why I seldom have fruitful political discussions.

Though some political sophisticates do structure their opinions in a larger ideological framework, such structure is rare. This level of political sophistication (one's "level of conceptualization&quot is correlated positively with the respondent's level of education, degree of political involvement, and amount of political information.

Given that more than 40% of our adult population is functionally illiterate, I am not surprised when specific issues net a "I'm not a political person" response. Few of my friends and neighbors know any of the following:

Arne Duncan

Ben Bernanke

Alan Greenspan

Milton Freeman

Edward Bernays

Gosh...I could go on and on. Those who are massively ignorant are likely feeling overwhelmed in these exponential times. This does not bode well for our littlies.

[Art_from_Ark]

112. Well, I consider myself pretty politically aware

but I have no idea who Edward Bernays is

[chervilant]

114. Bernays was Freud's nephew,

and the primary impetus behind using sex (and self-esteem) to drive consumerism.

I also have friends, family and colleagues who are ignorant about Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and their ilk. I get a lot of censure about my political activism.

[zeemike]

68. Very interesting...thanks n/t

[Melinda]

40. Oh, snap!

Keen observation. Thanks for that.

[kenfrequed]

63. Nope

I am a left wing vehement critic of the president's continual bowing to the banks and placating the republican agenda. I was angry at the tax cuts that he agreed to again and again. I was angry at the elimination of the public option. I was angry that the relief to those underwater on their mortgages was so convoluted. And I am angry that the Patriot act has not been undone.

But I do not think that Snowden is some kind of hero. I do not criticize him out of protective instincts towards a president who is way too far to the right for my tastes. I do so because he has brought us nothing new that we did not already know in 2005. And i do so because he is being lionized by a lot of people for this while Manning rots in prison awaiting military trial for revealing war crimes.

We should undo the Patriot act. I believed so under Bush and I continue to believe so under Obama. But look back to who voted for the Patriot Act in the house.

[reformist2]

69. My guess - they're paid to say these things.

[BrotherIvan]

78. For the most part, I don't think they're paid at all

OnyxCollie is right on, they feel so uncomfortable at even the thought that perhaps they've been lied to that they are doing anything to shout out reality. If they are being paid, they are so bad and so transparent, they need to find a new job. I am starting to feel pity for them in their disillusionment, but at the same time, think they should no longer be listened to. They have shown that they are willing to shred the constitution and serve up their fellow citizens to soothe their own misgivings. They must be ex-Republicans in some sense because they are constantly smearing "the professional Left" and "liberals" when that is in fact the backbone of the Democratic Party. They say they are fine with being monitored because they have nothing to hide, they hate whistle blowers, protesters and any form of civil disobedience. They completely disregard that those things are exactly upon which this nation was founded. They want everyone to STFU and not burst their safety bubble. They should be called out and not taken seriously.

[bvar22]

77. This ^

I am unable to fathom this devotion to a Person above Policy.

Historically, there have been cultures that embraced Loyalty to a Person
above the commitment to Values or Policy.
Historically, those cultures ended badly.

[BrotherIvan]

83. Agree 100%

And will go even further to say that a culture that holds up a person as a symbol to be worshipped is rotten to its core. It must be, because we used to be able to hold up the idea of America and democracy, now it's just an idol.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

105. I hope they're a small group, because I've been depressed at the level of

excuse-making, blame-shifting, time-shifting (2006), hating the messenger (Greenwald, Snowden) that this crowd is employing. I find myself wondering what percentage of DU is actually ok with the largest spy program in history, with a government making some very big totalitarian moves. I hope it's a small percentage, as you suggest.

[BrotherIvan]

109. I'm sure the long-timers know who they are

But they are making themselves so obvious now. I hope this is the straw that breaks the camel's back and people will see they will go to ANY lengths to apologize for their hero. All the excuses and spin all this time as they sold out health care, social security, Occupy, and now the Constitutional rights of citizens. They keep changing positions, first it was Bush did it! As if continuing Bush's policies are a-ok. Then it was it's not so bad it just a little bit of data, we're overreacting. Now it's bash the messenger. They're finally moving to the last stage, screaming about terrorists and how this is all for our own good. But just look at the threads where people object to this and how many recs they're getting compared to the BOrG Crap. These screaming ninnines should no longer be listened to.

[valerief]

39. They can't bear to have their illusions shattered, but, hell, life is a series of

shattered illusions, from Santa Claus on. They'd better get used to it.

[Seeking Serenity]

7. I don't think it's President Obama, per se,

as much as it is thinking that they're protecting the brand, that is, the Democratic Party, the idea being that anything that besmirches Obama by extension besmirches the party, and that having the party damaged in any way helps the Republicans.

I see the point, although I don't agree with it at all times. I'm not a "my party, right or wrong" kind of woman.

[TxGrandpa]

23. It seems to be more the government than party....

Once government programs start they tend to take on a life of their own and grow.

[pscot]

41. I disagree

People have a huge emotional investment in any president, and party loyalty reinforces that. But Mr. Obama carries an additional symbolic charge for many because of his race which raises the amperage of debate.

[BrotherIvan]

52. Yes, I see this often

I find it very sad that so many people's hopes have been so utterly dashed, none more than the greatest worshippers I suspect. To me, it is one of the most despicable things about this Trojan Horse situation: that the hope and good will of so many was so cynically twisted to achieve the exact opposite. The majority of voters chose a Democrat and all that he "stood" for; they chose an African American to lead them. Like snake oil salesmen preying on the sick, those who took advantage of that should be chased out of town with torches and pitchforks.

[pscot]

104. I'm not convivced Obama is merely cynical

But I do believe he's not very imaginative. His mind is legalistic and logical. What the Bush crowd was doing was illegal, so Obama's "fix" is to bring the government's actions back within the legal framework of FISA, which was itself an attempt, initiated by Ted Kennedy during the Carter years, to guard against the kinds of abuses committed by Cointelpro and the Nixon gang. The problem with FISA is that it didn't stop government spying on the people. Rather it established a legal mechanism by which the spying was institutionalized. Add to that the explosion in communications technology over the last 20 years and we arrive at the current mess. As for what Obama stood for, after he embraced Ronald Reagan during the 2008 campaign, many of us had our doubts, but I was pretty sure I wasn't voting for Malcom X.

[JDPriestly]

67. And, to be fair, this extremist paranoia in the NSA goes

way back to post-WWII, to the McCarthy era and the beginning of the CIA.

And we do have to be careful. We do have enemies. There are a lot of unscrupulous people and countries in the world.

It's just that we have gone to an extreme and it is costly in terms of damage to our democracy, trust amongst ourselves -- national unity, and our national budget. We cannot afford this paranoia. It has gone way beyond the rational limits of taking care of ourselves and our country.

[datasuspect]

18. the imperial presidency didn't end

when bush left office.

i think they could never bear the humiliation of being so stupid as to be hoodwinked not once but TWICE.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. And to be fair

Did not start with bush

It started in 1948, and when Clinton implemented Carnivore...off to the races. The technology just now got to the point they can do what the Stasi could only wish they could.

[bahrbearian]

27. " It started in 1948, and when Clinton implemented Carnivore" ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. 1948, National Security Act

It led to the creation of the CIA...1952, if I remember the date correctly NSA was formed, goal signals intel with the Cold War, area of purview foreign. Carnivore was a program signed into law after OKC by Clinton. Technology was to the point they could listen for key words in electronic communications. It was mostly pointed out, but was the first time a program of this sort was pointed in.

The last ten years all this has expanded to the point that we have a turn key tyranny that can be enacted in a damn second.

[Skittles]

92. Obama is very intelligent and would find such behaviour utterly appalling

no one with any amount of intelligence admires blind admiration

[RC]

4. +10

That does seem to be the only thing they object to - Anything not making Obama look good.

[kenfrequed]

60. Nope

That is not why I am suspicious of Snowden.

My reasoning is that we knew about this stuff back in 2005. We knew the NSA was cooperating with private organizations and we knew the Telecom companies were giving up information. Snowden does not deserve the accolades that have been laid like a wreath upon him while PFC Manning is facing life imprisonment or worse for putting out all that information about war crimes.

Snowden gave us very little new information and chose to do so in order to ultimately promote himself. That is the level limit of derision I will heap upon him.

Something must be done about the NSA and the Patriot Act.

[snagglepuss]

93. When I first read the story I thought I had deja vu because I thought this had

come out several years ago. Are you saying that he has revealed nothing new?

[kenfrequed]

118. Hmm...

A few details perhaps, but absolutely nothing about this is substantively new.

[Marr]

66. I think that message comes through pretty clearly anyway.

[KittyWampus]

97. I'm against liars (like Greenwald), jumping blindly on scandals and uninformed spouting of outrage.

[Coyotl]

103. Just like the OP, creating a simplistic black-and-white, either-or scenario in substitution for a

very complex situation with a long historical context.

Instead of your "anything that could possibly hurt Obama" you could as easily have included obvious qualifiers like "everything that co-opts an anti-Bush issue and stands it on its head so that it becomes an anti-Obama issue.

If Obama does something someone on DU perceives as possibly hurting Obama, that's not Obama's problem. Obama creates his own problems by supporting health care, minimum wage increase, etc. The extent of his support for legitimate NSA activities is of course going to be high because they are following his orders. In a non-black-and-white world, you would mention that those opposing a surveillance state may be more concerned about the abuse of these laws than about the proper implementation of NSA activities.

I was worried about these powers in 2007 and 2008 because such capabilities can be abused by those in the positions Bush created to ensure Republicans win elections. What I see as new to the situation is a whistle blower has released classified documents, a crime has been committed and the ignorant masses with no historical perspective of recent years are going to hang this around Obama's neck as if it is something new, even though it is a Bush crime and Congressional issue. In fact, therein may lie the reason we have a leak and blown-up story about what we knew all along has been happening non-stop since Bush did it illegally.

Meanwhile, this is not good for mine or the Nation's blood pressure. I need to go fishing--and screw all the newbie outrage by those who haven't been paying attention. I'd like to say they deserve the infringements they have been getting all along, except that the course of history has been altered and that certainly is more than they deserved. The poitential for abuse and abuses per se also have not yet become the focus of this simplistic, black-and-white, non-nuanced conversation about a complex chunk of recent American history. Time to really go fishing for fish, not President's in need of impeachment--that guy is in Texas fishing and cutting shrubs.

[chervilant]

107. hmm...

I suspect Dubya cuts shrubs like I walk on water (Rove knows a photo op when he sees one).

[arely staircase]

3. "The Administration is not questioning his background or even saying what he leaked was untrue."

Which is one reason I think it is possible he is working for the CIA right now.

[caseymoz]

31. And hiding in the clutches of the Chinese? nt

[arely staircase]

37. precisely

his mission is to feed them misinformation.

I am totally speculating, but its as plausible as anything as L'afair Snowden goes from weird to weirder.

Look, US contractor/spy pretends to go rogue and give a bunch of information to a journalist. But the funny thing is, there isn't all that much new to it, just enough to stir things up. The US makes all sorts of breathless pronouncements and denouncements.

Then, while bemoaning lack of privacy in the US, the contractor/spy flees to one of the biggest authoritarian regimes in the world, and has his meeting with the journalist mentioned above, in a hotel near the US consulate (and likely CIA station.) This authoritarian regime is well known to be the US's biggest cyber rival/enemy.

It is very possible.

[JDPriestly]

71. It is possible, but the topic here is the extent to which

we have built a spying network that Snowden claims focuses not just on foreign threats but on the communications of virtually all Americans.

If Snowden is lying, maybe the problem is not so severe. But if he is telling the truth, we have a huge problem.

So, we all have to deal with an unknown. Is Snowden telling the truth or not? We don't know. But we should assume that he is because if he isn't we don't have a problem, and if he is we do.

We should deal with the problem by insisting that the NSA be subject to Article III courts, that its activities be adjudged by the Article III courts for their compliance with the Constitution, return to absolute respect for habeas corpus and for other constitutional rights such as public trials and the right to confront accusers, etc. for all who are detained by any authorities, public or private.

In general, we need to reinstate our Constitution especially as it pertains to protecting individual rights of the accused and the First and Fourth Amendments.

We have to ask the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution so as to fully protect our rights and not to balance things in favor of the government. The courts need to respect the Constitution more and the bureaucracy in our government less.

[Chan790]

74. It's what Sun Tzu called the "dead spy" in the Art of War.

"Dead spies transmit false intelligence to enemy spies."

http://web.mit.edu/~dcltdw/AOW/13.html

[Marr]

70. Yes, I know-- he's a supreme loser of a highschool dropout and/or the ultimate superspy.

Depending on the rhetorical needs of the moment.

[Recursion]

5. Actually several government people have said he's wrong

By my count, one Representative and two former CIA managers.

[atreides1]

8. That's 3

Not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling here...

[Recursion]

9. It's Monday morning

Let the rest of the talking heads wake up from their regular weekend bender.

[backscatter712]

50. I'm sure they're completely unbiased... n/t

[GoneFishin]

54. Well, then it has to be true. No axe to grind there.

[Recursion]

55. No, but GP claimed the government wasn't contesting the accuracy of what he said

Whereas I'm pointing out that at least some parts of the government are.

[GoneFishin]

57. Oh, I follow what you are saying.

[Thinkingabout]

10. He took an oath, he violated this oath by providing a foreign news agency with information he had

taken an oath not to do. He has committed a crime and now he needs to do the time. Most of us knew the providing of information to HSA and NSA for some time, just read the Patriot Act, it was written to cover this information transfers, don't like it, it still does not negate the crime committed by Edward Snowden.

[xiamiam]

13. the oath most important here is the one the president took..to defend the constitution

that is what is at stake here. .that is the reason for this entire thing ..if we have a debate and decide to amend the constitution that is one thing, men and presidents come and go . the constitution is our guide ..once that starts getting trampled upon...with our knowledge and acquiescence.. we are toast and deserve whatever regime ..in the meantime, fight for that which is at the root of the problem.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Is the Patriot Act a signed law by GWB and extended under BHO? Is the president to pick and choose

the laws he or she may or may want to act upon, part of the oath of president. Take this to SC to see if you can get it changed. Snowden has committed a crime, the crime of revealing information he had sworn not to reveal, he is not a whistle blower, a whistle blower reveals wrong doing, by the Patriot Act being in place the information he revealed is backed by a law. He should have understood his actions and must have by running away.

[xiamiam]

48. the oath of office is to uphold the constitution..and that means all amendments

at the moment, there are a few being trampled upon. Transparency is the key here. I support whistleblowing when it reveals things that are not in our best interest and which violate our given rights...whether a handful have determined it is ok or not. That is why we are a nation of laws. I prefer to let the courts determine who is breaking the law instead of an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

[Thinkingabout]

84. This guy is not a whistle blower, he has revealed information, not a wrong doing.

Also and most importantly, Snowden is not a judge, here is a person with a GED, hardly qualified to make judgment of what may ir may not be constitution. This was not his decision to make. It is liken to giving locations of troops in battle, a sensible person would not do this. By the Patriot Act this data can be collected, get in touch with your Congress members to repeal the Patriot Act. If this ends in Supreme Court I know Snowden will not be sitting in judgment.

[bowens43]

22. Good for him and good for us. Our president took an oath to protect the constitution

why aren't you smearing him for violating his oath?

the fact that we knew is irrelevant. whether or not what he did is illegal is irrelevant.

with attitudes like the one you seem to have we will all be in chains (physical or otherwise)before too long......

[warrant46]

42. Our president took an oath

And apparently is ignoring it

[caseymoz]

34. The highest law in the land is the Constitution.

A government ordering him to violate that negates any pledge he made. The President himself is sworn to uphold the Constitution. If actions taken are undercutting it, then orders given to aid and abet are illegal and void.

Read the 4th amendment. How does this program support the rights spelled out there?

[cui bono]

85. You're being too kind when you say "a government ordering him to violate that".

He is the president after all, with veto power that he chose not to use when it mattered most to the people and the constitution.

[caseymoz]

115. You're thinking of the wrong "him."

It's not Obama.

Him refers to the Whisteblower.

[JDPriestly]

73. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

That's written in the Constitution. Have you read it?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

That's an easy-to-read version. Please do read it. And don't forget to read Article III and the Bill of Rights. It is a travesty of justice for the NSA to claim that it need not appear in the courts because its issues are national security.

The NSA and other security organs of the US claim that they are above the law administered in our Article III courts. I think that is a misunderstanding of the Constitution. And I think our courts fail us when they accept and agree with that argument.

We are either one nation, or we are two nations, one for us plebes and another for the elite of the security sector. I think the Constitution contemplates only one nation. The security sector should be subject to the same laws and courts that we all are. Otherwise, the security sector becomes our dictator.

[PDittie]

11. "Snowden Blizzard of Smears" coming

Already squalls appearing but will get much worse. Politico's first but surely not last entry is pretty tame but, yes, we get the not-good-neighbor report. Most of the rest was already in The Guardian, such as not finishing high school and leaving the Army after legs broken in training, and are hardly "smears." Oh, but living in luxury hotel in Hong Kong! And now Reuters and USA Today ID hotel but say he has checked out. USA Today: Media "manhunt" under way!

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/2013/06/snowden-blizzard-of-smears-coming.html

Greg Mitchell, report to the DU shitlist...

[caseymoz]

35. There are pockets in Hong Kong where they may never find him.

That was a good choice of exiles.

[MineralMan]

12. The Administration, as usual, is waiting for more, and accurate

information before making statements. In addition, they'll be unlikely to say much about Snowden. That's going to become a prosecution at some point, probably.

Some people are picking apart some of the things Snowden has said. For example, it is highly unlikely that he had the level of access that he is claiming. Intelligence operations are very compartmentalized, and an employee of a civilian vendor is unlikely to have access to much more than is required. The documents that have appeared are not critical documents in any way. They are briefing documents, used to inform people outside of the actual intelligence organization of what the organization is doing, in broad, general terms.

Such documents are not so hard to view for people like Snowden. More than that, he was unlikely to have access, especially to actual captured data or analyses of that data. I'm taking his claims with a larger amount of salt than is good for my blood pressure.

[JDPriestly]

75. But, as I pointed out in another post, Snowden is probably

a very gifted systems engineer. He can see the whole from a look at one part of the system. He worked in intelligence long enough to have seen a variety of aspects and organizations and systems.

I compared his knowledge to that of a musician who can hear the whole of a piece before he plays it or writes it down. Computer systems like music are based on certain mathematical relationships between the materials they work with, for music, the tones and rhythms and for computers, information and the form of the language used to express that information. Remember, for example, Beethoven was almost deaf when he wrote his 9th symphony.

So if a person has a lot of talent for understanding systems, he can probably get a pretty good idea about how the whole system will work if he catches a view of that system from different angles. And that is likely what Snowden did as he worked apparently (from what is being said) in different areas of the systems.

As for his lack of general education, Bill Gates did not graduate from college. A decent share of very gifted, brilliant people do not complete formal education. Many do, but some don't. It is irrelevant if a person is very talented. The comments about his biography just confirm that he may be a very talented person. He could be a fraud, but no one is really claiming that. No one is denying that this system exists and is gathering our data.

[marions ghost]

110. The guy is very smart

& you describe the type well. Bill Gates is a good example of a geeky genius who did not excel in school. There is a level of understanding of these systems that is beyond the grasp of probably 90% of us posting at DU. This possibility (re Snowden) is at least as likely as anything else, and IMO is plausible.

"No one denies that these systems exist." Right, the problem is that we are not supposed to focus on the implications of this widespread data mining.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. The smear machine is alive and well on DU

Some of these people should call DC and ask for a paycheck.

[DesMoinesDem]

20. Some of them them don't need to.

The money is already deposited in their bank account every month.

[backscatter712]

47. +1! n/t

[xiamiam]

51. you got that right..nt

[bvar22]

90. This latest episode has made it easy to tell who is what.

It is surprising how efficiently the Talking Pints are distributed,
and how quickly they show up in every thread,

*Old News

*Bush did it, and nobody complained then

*Snowden's whole story was debunked over the weekend

*Greenwald's whole story fell apart because of "inaccuracies"

*Snowden is unreliable
(He was a "bad neighbor&quot

There is literally no bar under which they will not try to slither.
The ferocity and depths of the attacks make my Spidey Senses tingle.

If the viability of our Democracy weren't hanging in The Balance,
these would be laughable,
but this IS Serious Business.


You will know them by their WORKS.

[stupidicus]

16. yep, as already noted, it's irrelevant garbage

and a dodge.

thanks for getting that case on the top where it belongs

[bowens43]

19. his background irrelevent anyway.....

we know without doubt that this attack on the 4th amendment has occurred and was sanctioned by the current administration.

the background or motivation of the person who brought to the attention of the press is irrelevant.

[geek tragedy]

21. Rushing to judgment is a bad idea whenever dealing with the intelligence apparatus.

This guy is a human being, which means he's going to have flaws and ego issues, even if he's also telling the truth. So trying to show him as an egotistical jerk or whatever won't discredit what he says.

[LWolf]

26. People who have to resort to shooting the messenger

because they can't adequately address the message, come of as weak and less than credible.

[cstanleytech]

28. The current administration though unlike the last one

is using the FISA for this Marrah and thats why its legal, scary, but legal.
As for Snowden, he broke the law or atleast thats the claim some are making though I have difficulty believing it because its not like he revealed something unknown as most of us have known for years that the feds have been in bed with the telecommunication companies for years in some form.

[JDPriestly]

76. A law can be "legal" in that it is passed by Congress but

still be unconstitutional either per se or as applied. So, FISA could be constitutional, but this interpretation of FISA be unconstitutional. Problem is that our security bureaucracy refuses to allow the courts to scrutinize its activities. So the security bureaucracy in that way holds itself to be above the law. So far the courts have been intimidated or infiltrated so as to actually support the travesty of justice that results from the security bureaucracy's holding itself above the courts and above the law. That may change when the judges begin to realize that their own telephone records may be in the hands of the NSA. That just might anger a few otherwise compliant people in our Article III courts. Wouldn't you love to take a peak at the phone records of, say, Scalia, or Thomas? That should be a riot.

Scalia probably calls the Vatican or his priest on a daily basis. What do you want to bet? Maybe somebody knows whether the rumors about Scalia's ties to Opus Dei are true. That could be interesting and useful to the wrong people.

[Raine1967]

30. Snowden knew what he was doing was illegal.

If he didn't why the hell did he leave the country?

That's not defending anything, nor is it tearing him down. he planned to do this, knowing full well it was illegal.

[reformist2]

56. No, it could mean he didn't want to deal with illegal prosecution.

[RVN VET]

32. Snowden's motives have been questioned, but I don't think enough is knnown yet to impugn or praise h

Stephanie Miller's show suggested he's a narcissist who self-identified because he wants to make the thing all about him. They questioned his reasons for fleeing to Hong Kong before self-identifying. But, Jebus! Bradley Manning was arrested and "disappeared" by the military which, from what I understand, treated him cruelly while holding him away from the public's eye. Snowden, by fleeing the country, has prevented a midnight raid and arrest by the government and, of course, the months of torture/interrogation in a secret cell, a la Bradley Manley.

Iceland, I understand, has offered him asylum. Honk Kong, meanwhile, has requested that he leave asap. And now the CIA has planted a story suggesting he may be a spy for the Chinese.

So he might be a patriot acting out of the best principles. A narcissist who craved headlines. A spy for the Chinese. He might even be a CIA agent -- I don't know exactly how that fits into the picture, but it's something that's being bandied about.

Personally, I think it's time to take a breath and see how this story develops.

Also personally, I don't think the level of screening of calls by the NSA is something to be nervous about. But if what Snowden says is true: that NSA CAN listen in whenever and for whatever reason they want, then it's time to be nervous -- because, if the can do it, they will do it. (The military was listening in on phone calls from in and from East Germany before the collapse of the USSR. That was in the old analog days. I shudder to think of the technology currently available to our Intel people.)

Meanwhile, try not to use the word "bomb" or "government building" "Allah" or "Satan America" in any phone conversation or e-mail. If they're looking, that -- and other terrorist buzz words -- are what they'll be looking, and listening, for.

Just sayin'

[DCBob]

33. I think Mr Snowden only has part of the truth..

and filled in the gaps with heresay.

[bluedigger]

38. I think his credibility has relevance to his testimony.

It's not a question of whether or not I support the police state, but a question as to his reliability as a witness.

[fleabiscuit]

44. Mr. Snowden is seriously flawed.

So is anyone falling for his deeply flawed logic.

[backscatter712]

46. *PLONK* n/t

[LanternWaste]

86. One day I hope to meet someone who is not deeply flawed...

One day I hope to meet someone who is not deeply flawed... but so far, everyone's been human,

[JDPriestly]

87. What logic? I don't think he is relying on his logic.

I think he is discussing his experience. The government could deny that what he is saying is true. But I haven't heard that they have done that.

I don't care about Mr. Snowden's flaws. I care about whether my government is secretly keeping records on all my e-mails. If they are, I want to see what ALL of my records look like. I want to know what other aspects of my life they are snooping on.

Do those helicopters that fly overhead in the night and disturb my sleep peak into my bedroom. What other morbid curiosities does my supposedly democratic government of, by and for the people satisfy with its massive surveillance programs.

[backscatter712]

45. Let's call the tearing-up what it is: character assassination.

And everyone participating in this kind of character assassination is a fucking despicable piece of shit.

It's the same fucktardery that Sen. McCarthy was doing in the 1960's. Uh-oh, he might be a Communist! Quick, let's dig through his life and see what can be used to smear him.

[SoapBox]

49. I vote treason.

and then the little dick wad, flees the country to China.

[backscatter712]

58. I vote you into my ignore list. *PLONK* n/t

[hootinholler]

53. I thought cheapening the discussion was the goal?

Good point that the administration isn't calling him a liar.

[JDPriestly]

59. Everytime a whistleblower gets fed up and starts talking

the same crew comes out to destroy the person. It's all ad hominem attacks to distract us from the fact that none of these whistleblowers are as horrible as the government and special interests that are perpetrating the crimes that the whsitleblowers expose.

[gholtron]

79. And there are people that automatically

make he/she a hero without examing the facts first. This is to distract us that he broke the law.

[JDPriestly]

88. He seems to be quite aware that he broke a law.

I think that the law is not very relevant here as the entire surveillance program may be unconstitutional. I am not the Supreme Court so I don't get to issue an official ruling on that, but it seems to me that it is.

Is a person who exposes illegal acts or an illegal program on the part of the government breaking a law? Maybe. Maybe not. It isn't so simple.

This man was very clear about the fact that he did not name names or expose secrets about foreign countries or that would give an advantage to a foreign country. He seems to have been quite aware of how to avoid violating the espionage act. So this will be very interesting. I hope that he has a fair chance because I am grateful that he spoke up.

[gholtron]

94. The only thing illegal is what he did.

What Law was broken? He couldn't tell you. Why is he in Hong Kong? He said that he didn't want media attention but yet he does an interview? I don't like the law that doesn't mean I make public our secrets. I'm glad he is no longer in a place where he can do no more harm.

[JDPriestly]

98. But the courts may decide that the program that he revealed

is illegal. I don't think we can conclude that the program is legal. It probably chills speech and violates the Constitution. It will take a long time for this issue to finally work its way through the courts. And we may get an initial decision approving of the program and then see that chiseled away until there is no way the government is allowed to do this.

I don't think that this program is compatible with our Constitution. But then the details of the program are unclear.

[cui bono]

89. Making it about him breaking the law IS the distraction.

The central issue is the extent of the spying on U.S. citizens, not the leaker who told us about it.

The law has to be broken these days for the public to know what the govt is up to. Would you rather the constitution be ignored and democracy abolished?

[gholtron]

95. Then why have laws?

If we can pick and choose when to break laws without consequence, then what good are they? And if everyone breaks them then there goes society. There will be anarchy. So there goes our freedoms.

[gholtron]

61. This guy should rot in prison.

I consider myself acting as a rational adult. What did this guy tell us that we didn’t already know? Did this so called Hero point out what laws were broken? No. If so what were they? Did members of Congress know about this? Yes so there was oversite then. Did the NSA get warrants? Yes ok then they followed the law. Did he warn the terrorist of how we were tracking them while creating FEAR among the American people? Yes. Then he gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Now let’s look at this rationally since you brought it up. How many phone calls being made or emails being sent at any given point in time? I don’t know the exact number but it’s fair to say Millions. Is it possible of anyone or a group of people to listen to any of the conversations that takes place or read that many emails? HELL NO. Whst this high school dropout, non-computer degree traitor did was expose how we track terrorist. Didn’t he say that he didn’t want media attention but then turns around and gives a full interview starting with his Name and age? He decided to leak classified information because “HE FEELS” that the people should know? That to me is more dangerous than the government keeping tabs on people.  He wants to be another Bradley Manning.  I am not afraid of the government keeping my records. Hell the IRS does it all the time.  I am more afraid of these self-motivated whistle blowers that feel that they should inform the public of new weapon technology the government is working on. Or they feel they should warn the terrorist that we know their names and where they’re at and they (self-motivated whistleblower) should warn the people of that country that the US is going to invade their country to look for these people. Is this what we want?

[Blue State Bandit]

62. Lawfully executed FISA warrants and the collection of open source are distastfull, but... legal.

Bradly Manning did not leak "Top Secret" data pertaining to ongoing cyber-intelligence operations. He obtained his clearance by serving in the US Armed Forces. After being identified, he did not run, hide, or place himself within easy grasp of foreign intelligence organizations.

Snowden passed "Top Secret" information regarding ongoing cyber-intelligence operations dutifully execute under the color of law, then ran off to hide in the back yard of our nation's greatest adversaries in the field of cyber-intelligence. He compromised national security, twice, and was put into the position after 3 weeks working for a "security contractor" with a long history of involvements in domestic political intelligence activities.

Greenwald is being played, and so are you. Bush refused to use the FISA/oversight mechanisms penned by Sen, Ted Kennedy.
Obama obtained FISA warrants.

I believe those who compare Obama's actions to Bush's actions are are engaging in reactionary indignation and are falling under the same trance as teabaggers who believe Obama's a Commie/Kenyan because they heard it on the TV machine.

[RainDog]

65. k&r n/t

[Skidmore]

72. I think you should flip that around.

That people are being demanded to just totally become acolytes to this man without knowing more about him and what he has leaked is not one whit different that you are accusing others of doing. Personally, I would like to know more about him and I think it is important. As for the issues you list above, I have said many times on these boards that we need to force our legislators to do their job and either repeal some of the legislation they have passed on national security or amend it. Now, Snowden needs to answer some questions too. And we need to be able to deal with the real issues at hand. What's that old saying? Beware of Trojans bearing gifts?

[Marrah_G]

99. I haven't made up my mind about the guy

Maybe he did the right thing. Maybe he did it for the right reasons or for the wrong reasons. The posts I am talking about are the ones tearing his history apart for no other reason then the poster is pissed and defending the administration.

Posts like ones claiming he was thrown out of the military or was never in the military. The ones about his education. The one that points out that he wasn't friendly with his neighbors....etc etc.

It's all crap that gets in the way of the real discussion: Is what the administration doing legal, constitutional, ethically right, democratic etc and what do we do when people shine a light on parts of government that may be overstepping onto our right of privacy.

I'm not sure if he broke the law. If he did he will probably go to jail. But regardless of what he did, when people post that he was kicked out of the military or was never in the miltary, when what really happened was that he broke both legs during training and was discharged..... well.... it just turns into tabloid crap.

[Skidmore]

101. I don't know that the biographical information isn't important.

Biographical information provides context as well. I'm not certain how I feel about this man, but I do know that I'm not going to sit around and trash the President just to make people happy here. I think the Patriot Act and the FISA law were grand overreaches and they either need to go back to congress and be reworked or repealed. Or, they need to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Frankly, I don't see either happening with the makeup of both of those institutions. The laws were constructed to cover Bush's ass, plain and simple. Do you see Boehner bringing a revision up before the House? Over the past decade the Congress has funneled billions and billions of dollars into the rat hole of the intelligence community. They aren't about to stop now. Too many cronies want their due. Remember that Snowden's last employer was a Carlyle entity and that should be enough to give you pause about who is providing the machinery of spookery. The Bushes have not gone away and I believe they are trying to return via Jeb. Mark my words.

[DevonRex]

81. Anybody pretending they didn't know looks like Fox News Hosts.

It's fucking ridiculous. Look, if Marrah can say people look like cheerleaders and fans, rather than rational adults I can say that.

We are on this board for politics. Everyone knew about this. Journalists have written about it for years. Congress just expanded the FISA court powers to cover domestic and extended the timeline back in December. How could ANYONE HERE NOT KNOW THAT???

Our own Steven Leser has a radio show and discusses the issue. Here's a transcript of the last show on this topic. You can also listen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[Jenoch]

82. What I don't understand

are the people who defend Manning and prosecute Snowden.

[jmowreader]

91. The fact is, thanks to George W. Bush and the GOP the spying was and is legal

Our wonderful Congress, the one that decided to give 43 everything he ever dreamed of and a few things he didn't, made the spying 100 percent legal. It falls into a huge gray area of the Fourth Amendment; with the five right-wingers on the Supreme Court I am more than certain presenting this to them would result in a "yeah, it's just hunky-dory with us" ruling. The PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, two of the three biggest atrocities of the past twenty years (the third is "Bush v. Gore&quot , make it so.

What needs to be done is to repeal those two laws, and make this spying illegal. Right now, it's not illegal.

[Coyotl]

113. Of course, that is not the perception being generated now, Obama the Spy replaces Bush the Criminal

illegally spying on Americans with the current media's falsely hyped story.

[KittyWampus]

96. How about you actually stick to the FACTS? And you aren't even posting the details>

you just type "spying" as code for dumb/blind outrage and some general points.

And Greenwald LIED or was mislead by Snowden. The story is not correct.

What part of that don't you grasp?

And one doesn't have to be okay with the surveillance to be questioning the who premise of this "scandal".

But when you are an outrage junkie, every possible scandal is another opportunity to prove how smart and uber-liberal you THINK you are.

[nashville_brook]

100. k and r for a rational thinking post...unlike some ^^^

[avaistheone1]

102. Thank you!

k&r

[William769]

108. kick & recommended.

[MannyGoldstein]

111. Excellent point!

Thanks!

[treestar]

116. Wow, talk about projection!

Who is the cheerleader and fan here? Of whom?

Just wow.

[davidpdx]

117. I think that he should be prosecuted for leaking classified data

The issue as to whether the surveillance should be changed is separate. I changes being made and more oversight.

Snowden made a decision to leak the information knowing the possible consequences. Plenty of people have been prosecuted for leaking information so it wouldn't take a legal background to figure out if you do that, your going to have charges pressed against you.

People are trying to deflect from what Snowden did by saying Obama broke his oath. It is nothing but a sideshow. Snowden had a national security clearance and was fully aware of what his responsibilities were in accepting that.