General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSick and tired of the Snowden fanbase
To all the people defending Snowden, defend this:
In the above quote Edward Snowden says he will let journalists in those countries decide whether its safe and appropriate to print the classified documents he took from American intelligence, and whether the information he releases poses a danger to our country.
I don't care if other people on this forum criticize me for saying this but I can not and will not support or defend this man's actions. He has already made a few exaggerated claims but his choice to bring this to an international level really brings into question his intentions. He seems more like an anti-government libertarian hell-bent on making the United States look bad rather than someone concerned about the privacy of American citizens.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)I didn't think it would be that offensive. OP if you're the one who alerted it it was more of a gentle ribbing not a personal attack.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)but I am pretty sure it was someone else commenting in the thread... some verbiage from the alert indicates who it might have been. either way... great pic!
sP
Rise Rebel Resist
(88 posts)still_one
(92,433 posts)East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)Cha
(297,772 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)leftstreet
(36,117 posts)Galraedia
(5,027 posts)on non-allied nations to these non-allied nations?
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)You must have taken debate classes in grade school.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)skills.
Response to Galraedia (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)FAIL
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)Real classy jury member we got there.
Good grief.This place is really getting to be an embarrassment.
Hang in there.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)considering the title, I expected another "damn that Snowden! He is a no good traitor, and all around super villain!" like some have been saying lately.
I am disappointed.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Might want to try it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)This wouldnt even be an issue if the NSA wasn't spying on the American people
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)a problem with. After the cluster-fuck George W. Bush left this nation, I can't really blame Democrats for not making addressing any issues with the Patriot Act a top priority in the less than two years they controlled the house and senate.
Logical
(22,457 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)huh what?
How does someone complaining about :
the secrets and lies in a government Obama said was going to be transparent
equate to :
I'm sick and tired of people blaming liberals for not fixing every damn thing they have...
a problem with.
Hyperbole much?
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)NSA isn't really a secret. What they've been doing was brought to light back in 2006. But sure lets blame Obama for something we were dumb enough to forget.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Someone explained it further down the thread. You carry on with your... errr... "sick and tired'ing"?
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Can't have it both ways. You can't freak out screaming that he divulged secrets and then in the very same thread pretend there were no secrets and the NSA is just a bastion of transparency.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I like good points.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)Not really a secret....
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)does snowden have to flee?
get your fucking stories straight.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)So dont give me that crap.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/27/patriot-act-extension-signed-obama-autopen_n_867851.html
jeff47
(26,549 posts)to satisfy the 4th amendment.
But hey, don't let that get in the way of some good-ol Obama hatin. We'll show him in 2014 just like we did in 2010, right?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's not being protected. It's being grossly encroached upon.
The courts almost always side with the government on 4th amendment issues.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Not because the courts are evil or ineffective.
But because the executive branch shouldn't even be asking the courts unless they meet the criteria for a warrant.
Courts frequently having to reject the executive branch is a sign that the executive branch is out-of-control.
But that doesn't make for compelling TV, movies or books. Out-of-control or nearly out-of-control prosecutors are a more compelling story. And after getting that story over and over again, we start to assume it's true.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You are asking for a LOT of trust for a government that hasn't done shit to deserve that trust.
First rule in political science...Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You can't have a secret court issuing secret warrants. That's not the way our government and our justice system is supposed to work. It's supposed to be open to the public. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
If that puts Americans more at risk for a terrorist attack? SO BE IT! It's the cost of living in a free country and Im willing to accept that cost. Your demand for an illusion of safety is infringing upon my rights and liberties to live in a free country.
If we were not fucking around in all these countries in the mid-east, none of these terrorists would even give a shit about this country.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Such as what was discovered in 2006 when the NSA metadata program was first leaked.
You also can't broadcast "Hey, China! We think you just hacked Google and are watching the people we think are your operatives."
Thus that secret court needs lots of oversight. From Congress, since that's the only branch not directly involved in the decisions. And we should be rather pissed that many Congresspeople haven't bothered to show up to the meetings about it.
Congresspeople don't like the staff restrictions or other excuses? They're fucking Congress. They make the rules. If they don't like the rules, they are the ones who have the power to change the rules.
Well, when you manage to find the Tardis, we can go back and not re-install the Shah. Until then, we're stuck with our history as it stands.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)No one gives a crap if we are spying on China. No one cares if we are spying on foreign nationals. And we don't need to know such things.
The problem is we are collecting data on AMERICANS on American soil! That's what people are pissed off about.
It makes it look like WE are the enemy.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You must be reading a different message board. There's plenty of people saying the NSA shouldn't be spying on anyone.
But back to my point: Those "operatives" I mentioned in that example were not in China. They were in the US. If they were in China, the FISA court would not be involved at all.
No, the problem is a data retention issue. The phone companies delete the data between 3 months and 5 years after the call is made. If someone does blow up a bomb, it is very, very handy to try and figure out who they spent a lot of time with. (Or if we figure out someone's working for China).
Thus the need to store the data. But we sure as hell don't want the phone companies hanging on to it - they already demonstrated they can not be trusted in the 2006 scandal. Enter the NSA for storage, the FISA court for day-to-day oversight, and Congress for broader oversight.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)If it wasn't collected in the first place it wouldn't have to be stored. eom
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I'm getting really tired of the people upset by this program being utterly divorced from reality.
So, where the hell do you think all that data on your phone bill comes from? Magic pixies?
Should we jack up everyone's phone bills to "unlimited calling" so that you don't have to trouble your head about metadata?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)over for future government grazing.
You are utterly divorced from reality. Once upon a time the government did not know who I called however, thanks to their preent efforts (at our expense $$$ + privacy issues) they do.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The SCOTUS ruled on this in 1979. It's T-mobile's data. They could sell it to marketers, give it to the government, or publish it on a billboard.
We call this "before telephones were invented". As long as there have been phone bills, the government has been able to get warrants to access those records. Just like the NSA case.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)they can go to the phone company and collect the data for the number assigned to me. Fine.
What I am objecting to is the collection of data by the gov't pre-emptively, or just in case they have the 'need' in the future to secure a warrant. No.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Are you actually of the belief that the Federal government does phone billing for US citizens?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)When this story broke in 2006, it was revealed that the phone companies were just handing over the metadata.
No warrant, no supervision, no due process.
Why could they? Because it's their data. We don't get a say.
You are claiming that returning the data to the whim of the phone companies is better than a process that explicitly requires a warrant and Congressional oversight.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And no, it's also not true that I am claiming that the data should be at the whim of phone companies, rather than requiring a warrant. The phone company needs to keep that metadata confidential (metadata also includes specific geographical location data, in the case of smart phones). The government needs to get a SPECIFIC WARRANT for SPECIFIC PEOPLE when they have actual PROBABLE CAUSE. Thank you.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the rest of the country does.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I am correct.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That some peoples interpretation of how the Democratic process works in the framework of a Constitutional Democratic Republican
especially when it conflicts with their fantasy world where there really are national security risks and people out there that really do want to bring harm to American people.
I know
I know
give me liberty or give me death! and that giving up liberty for security clap trap that sounds great
until the bomb goes off in your neighborhood. Then, its The government really dropped the ball on that one!
{witness Boston: 2013}
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I think that may be exactly the sort of thing he was talking about. Take courage--most of us find we aren't terribly afraid of terrorists, but we like our freedoms. It takes a real load off when you release yourself from being frightened of the things you're conditioned to be frightened of.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)everyone is noble, until there is a cost to pay ... and then, only if it is them that has to pay the cost.
Most of us aren't terribly afraid of terrorist/terrorism BECAUSE we have not experienced terrorism ... All of us are fearful of "the lose of our freedoms" even though it really only in the abstract.
Like the lose of our "freedoms"?
Please tell me how the collection of metadate has affected your life.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)state. If the Democrats can't even fix that then what can they do? I don't want to hear any excuses. Fixing this problem is basic to the survival of this country as a democracy.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)in such short order I figure it had been done ahead..."just for the right moment". We have been taken for a magical ride in the name of security....sorta like the Clean Air Act, NCLB, etc.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)So no fuss, no buss.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Those that apparently embrace the propaganda spewed from the Corp-Media.
treestar
(82,383 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)flamingdem
(39,332 posts)Then we won't hear the sound of Snowden cheerleading around here
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)They're as fanatical as Teahadists - and they share a common goal: they hate Obama. It's the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" group.
Oh, and despite their love for this country, they have NO qualms in attacking her first and foremost. They're the reason why Cons and Rightwingers can rightfully say that some are part of the "blame America first" crowd, only, in this case, it's "blame Obama first".
Then again, they didn't vote for that black man to be in the White House, either. What I've also seen today is, and what's alarming, is that there are more pro-Snowden and Manning posts than posts about the ruling that the Rightwingers on SCOTUS have effectively gutted the VRA. You'd think that these "Liberals" would be OUTraged against the civil rights of minorities in our country. I guess it's not as important.
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)though I am about to post about the spat between Reed and Greenwald, this issue shines a certain light on things..
frylock
(34,825 posts)when that's the crux of your argument, then you lose. now tell us all that we're racists.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)You are against a policy of the government so you are haters. Really? lol.
frylock
(34,825 posts)binary thinking. everything is black and white in their "reality based" world. no nuance, no grey area. if you're A, then you must be B. it would never occur to them that there is a C.
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)but I can think clearly and don't follow the poutrage of the day.
Snowden signifies very little long run but he's a hook for the right wing.
Other issues that REALLY matter to more than Liberatarians include
citizens united
climate change
voting rights
frylock
(34,825 posts)will you embrace the surveillance state when president jeb has the NSA at his fingertips?
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)The particulars are somethng else that require a major breakdown of what happened and when by whom and what now.
More than can really be worked out in a few lines at DU
I lived through Nixon and Reagan, surveillance is not my number one concern.
By the way do you log out of your google account or do you allow them to gather all you page clicks?
See what I mean? This issue is the poutrage of the day and there is plenty of loose thinking on the topic
frylock
(34,825 posts)vol·un·tary adjective \ˈvä-lən-ˌter-ē\
1: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2: unconstrained by interference : self-determining
3: done by design or intention : intentional <voluntary manslaughter>
4: of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will <voluntary behavior>
5: having power of free choice
6: provided or supported by voluntary action <a voluntary organization>
7: acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation
vol·un·tar·i·ly adverb
vol·un·tar·i·ness noun
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Think about it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)do you know the difference between gifting and stealing?
patrice
(47,992 posts)Please don't go off on me; just trying to clarify a few things here.
Wouldn't I know if I were engaging in actions that are a threat to this country, so I could voluntarily decide whether I'm going to risk doing those things or not?
frylock
(34,825 posts)evidently just attending an OWA protest would be enough. Russell Tice states that Obama was tracked by the NSA. what did Obama do to warrant that?
patrice
(47,992 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)have Outlook Web Access on my mind after work.
patrice
(47,992 posts)drive for appropriate and valid transparency. I imagine OWS and their friends around the world are paying attention. I hate the possibility of some real bastard of a President inheriting these precedents.
I don't want an end to these programs either, for the reasons that I sketched in #295.
I'm particularly concerned about what's going to happen to lots of people because of climate change. That's climate change of which we were/are the biggest cause, economically and militarily. What we are has created responsibilities. We need reform, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore what we've caused.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)I know exactly how they think. It's just sad to see it on this board.
QC
(26,371 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)tblue
(16,350 posts)I don't know anyone who fits that description.
LibAsHell
(180 posts)Let's see...
If you care about the invasion of privacy of Americans and foreigners by the NSA, you "hate Obama." Brilliant.
If you aren't abandoning this topic to go be outraged by the SCOTUS decision, you don't care about minorities. Infallible logic.
First off, this has nothing to do with Snowden, but everything to do with America spying on everyone.
Secondly, how the hell could you possibly know how much people engaged in this discussion are or aren't outraged by the SCOTUS decision? What a non-sequitur.
The only liberal in quotes here is you.
patrice
(47,992 posts)more carefully. That doesn't mean that what BlueCaliDem said isn't relatively true for some DU -ers, nor that that subset size could not consist a significant, i.e. powerful, minority in the zeitgeist of this board.
And, of course, those limitations could be true of your characterizations too.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)As we speak, Texas, Mississippi, NC, SC and I'm pretty sure all the other GOP run states are going in chorus - Voter I.D. laws, i.e. toll tax, and RED-districting so that these states will remain solid red. Therefore, voting rights for constituents in these states will be marginalized or will not able to vote at all especially for non-whites.
Ms. Davis in Texas is doing her best in filibuster a horrible abortion bill and if she can hold on for 13 hours - mission accomplished.
Meanwhile, these GOP run states are also gutting worker's rights. GOPers want to eliminate minimum wage and of course no health care nor retirement benefits.
I read where some posters are praising China and Russia, y'know the countries who have none or limited free speech and claim America is worst.
aquart
(69,014 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)I cringe whenever I see someone make 'blanket' assessments of a defined group.
I am not "fanatical." I do not "hate Obama." I am NOT attacking our country!
However, I do think that the Patriot Act needs to go, and the fearmongers in the NSA stopped.
Furthermore, I doubt the veracity of virtually every media source, so I'll resist vilifying Mr. Snowden prematurely (if at all).
patrice
(47,992 posts)that's the driver for a significant sub-cohort that tilts the balance here, but economic class is the over-arching prejudice and . . .
I honestly DO NOT UNDERSTAND why we don't talk about this point here at the DU more: ANY bigotry can work both ways here, because of the art of trollery. By this I mean that the meta-driver, economic class prejudices, can be ACTED out by BOTH those who have prejudices AGAINST the poor, by working to divide and conquer (which seems to be working pretty well, btw) and by those who have prejudices against the rich, by cultivating contrarian reactionary cliques.
The reason all of that meta-trollery works is because there's an awful lot of DU -ers who apparently care way less for concrete issues relevant to their actual lives than they do for other things like anger, frustration, and power. Not that those personal things should be regarded as 0, just more that it would be helpful if all of us were working to be more individually, honestly and fully self-aware about what we're doing.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Several have already said we deserve to be hurt (as a nation).
patrice
(47,992 posts)deaths . . .
which, of course, a Democratic President would be blamed for and a Republican President would be pardoned, as recent history clearly demonstrates.
Cha
(297,772 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)"If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear." Or, does that homily only apply to the proles?
patrice
(47,992 posts)there ARE people out there who need some secrecy, because they are indeed involved in information that does in fact relate to whether other people live or die.
That doesn't mean that ALL of the secrecy is about that any more than that it doesn't mean that none of the secrecy is about that.
To assume that all of the hiding is counter to your, or others', vital interests seems too big a leap without enough actual information. There are those who look at an assumption like that and guess that it is prejudice against something. It could be prejudice, or it could be that you don't think anyone is in danger, or if they are they deserve to be, or if they die it doesn't matter.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)ksoze
(2,068 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)I think you meant "Tons of feathers."
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)could result in conditions that far exceed the oppression being characterized in the status quo.
Freedom consists in living in the real world. An analogy: What's a more free act? Even though a woman might not get pregnant, engaging in prophylaxis anyway? Or whether it results, or not, in the oppression, for yourself and others, of creating an unwanted life, being so compelled that you don't engage in prevention? And I'm asking you here to consider, not just the results, one way or the other of that specific kind of risk, but rather, instead, the general effects of that kind of personality trait upon all sorts of things, big and small, that can add up to oppression.
This is about priorities, so self-discipline can be an essential determinant of freedom.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)be honest.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)makes him a traitor?
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)The Fan Base nor The Hate Base.
But I do find it amusing that so many people can be so filled with hate and fear that they cannot discern the truth that they really don't know what the hell is going on. I've seen supposed Americans advocating that this man be shot dead without a trial. And, I've seen people propose canonization for this man.
Hubris?
It is not a condiment.
Where in the Constitution or the written letters of our Founding Fathers is there any advocating for Secret Courts?
Does anyone actually realize that more people win the lottery than die from terrorism in America?
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)to save his own hide.
The anti-Snowdens include liberals like Ed Schulz by the way
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Of what secrets?
You mean China did not know we were spying on them?
Really?
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The we took control of life support systems though should worry you a tad
frylock
(34,825 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)still ongoing or terminated. that is secific operational intel that goes way beyond jut saying we are spying on them.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)That totally negates the message.
Let's kill the messenger!
Is there a pitch fork and torches smilie?
Fla Dem
(23,768 posts)I'm glad Mr. Snowden's actions brought to center stage the enormity of the surveillance of US Citizens allowed by the Patriot Act. But the point is because it is in the Patriot Act it's legal and was known about by Congress. Perhaps eventually this outrage by a large segment of the population will result in modifications and/or elimination of the most extreme parts of the act dealing with US citizens surveillance. Having said that, I'm also outraged that Mr. Snowden would run to an extreme authoritarian country to expose our country's surveillance of other governments and terrorist groups. Whether we like it or not, we do not live in a perfect world. To think we should just sit on our hands and hope for the best is living in a dream world. For Mr. Snowden to release confidential security information to countries that would eat us for lunch was irresponsible, dangerous and yes traitorous.
Two Western intelligence experts, who worked for major government spy agencies, said they believed that the Chinese government had managed to drain the contents of the four laptops that Mr. Snowden said he brought to Hong Kong, and that he said were with him during his stay at a Hong Kong hotel
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/world/asia/china-said-to-have-made-call-to-let-leaker-depart.html?pagewanted=all
The South China Morning Post, a local newspaper, reported on Friday that Edward J. Snowden, the contractor, had shared detailed data showing the dates and Internet Protocol addresses of specific computers in mainland China and Hong Kong that the National Security Agency penetrated over the last four years. The data also showed whether the agency was still breaking into these computers, the success rates for hacking and other operational information.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/world/asia/ex-nsa-contractors-disclosures-could-complicate-his-fate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Skinner: make the USA surrender to the Chinese right fucking now!
I'll go ask in AA.
Oh shit, it turns out we aren't even at war with the Chinese, we are so totally fucked that we can't even surrender to them.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)from China that penetrate 41% of the world & government computer systems every day.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)that needs the full weight of the law. I'll have my pound of flesh please.
patrice
(47,992 posts)it's FISA, the FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act, so this isn't just America, it could involve people such as those providing human intelligence for Foreign Aid, which has been abused in the past, but which could also be reformed as a means of responding to things like outlaws in Mali, or the spike in the rate of increase in drought on the continent of Africa that is expected soon. I'd bet there are other examples, other agencies. Just because the USA should completely cease it's economic and militaristic imperialism, that doesn't mean that it should not help 3rd world countries who need it and Americans and their friends on the ground need to be able to do so as safely as possible. No more murders like that of Ambassador Stevens!
No more nation building either, so no, I'm not in favor of the USA being the policeman/savior of the world, but if we're ever going to get to a place of INTERNATIONAL co-operation on human rights, someone has to work out the means by which that could be possible. Someone must begin that transition and, btw, we do kind of owe people of the world a thing or two, especially those who are in the most need.
And, yes, I know what I just said drives Libertarians like Snowden insane.
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)thanks for your sane expression of the issues!
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)and I'm concerned about the international damage. It's not about the NSA. It's about how bad he can make the US look.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)the U.S. is spying? Where the hell have they been on some soma trip. Well welcome to the "Brave New World" world.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)the US "looking bad"? Rather than what the US is doing to you and in your name?
The US looks bad for many reasons other than this.
Maybe it's a good thing that you see how bad the US really is?
(Not talking about the people, talking about the PTB & corporates who have used and abused the people. The American people are good hearted and hard-working, but many are too trusting).
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It's about damaging our capacity for diplomacy and foreign strategies.
So if you REALLY gave a shit about Kerry being successful, you'd understand that Snowden's releasing classified info hurts the cause of peace.
but for Libertarians who hate all authority or the Chomsky crowd who sees the US as the source of all evil in the world, exposing anything that damages our country is good.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)you're damaging our relationship!
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)His deadpan delivery of his 'outrage' looked like he was trying to crap a pellet.
Steven Wright has an act built upon the Kerry persona.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"He seems more like an anti-government libertarian hell-bent on making the United States "look bad"--
so I was responding to that comment.
You don't want to know what I think about what John Kerry has said about it--very disappointing, & certainly not diplomatic. But Kerry's "success" is not dependent on what I think. Washington does not respond on the issues that I care about.
I believe actually, that Snowden's release (what we know so far) ultimately helps the "cause of peace." I don't have time to write an essay on it, but that's my bottom line. This crypt needed to be opened. I hope this shakes up our diplomatic relations and so-called foreign strategies to the point where we lose the arrogance that makes us think we should store and control every byte or yottabyte on the internet. Where does America get off thinking we should have that much control? I wish you could see that this is has potential for a new day, a better day. I want America to be a force for good, not a totalitarian monster. America Uber Alles--no way, sorry.
Stereotypes of "Libertarians," "Chomsky crowd"--etc.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)It's a lot of data.
It costs about a billion dollars worth of equipment and buildings to store it in Utah... oddly enough, the same place that has every person born since... ever, stored in another database.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---all your yottabytes are belong to us. Database land.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the droning of the Middle East has already done that.
politicasista
(14,128 posts)Excellent post and keeping it 100.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Our nation has a long history of profit-driven, ill-conceived, disastrous foreign policy debacles.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)stands and the strides it's taken to get where we are--good or bad.
My point is that this guy has no regard for the efforts MY parents and those that came before them, struggled,sacrificed, and yes, cheered on this country to try and make it better for you and me. It's far from perfect, but it's a country that is a hell of a lot better than you make it out to be.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)He did not destroy the country of our forefathers.
He told the truth about us spying on people.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)I'm sure they didn't work so hard for us to live in an electronic prison.
Because we have veered so far off that noble course you speak of, a correction has become necessary. And not just in this area of surveillance--but in a LOT of areas.
Do you not see that the corporates are picking away at our freedoms and basic rights to a point that would insult what your parents stood for? Is that STILL not apparent?
This is not your parent's dream for America, I am sure.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)the hounds (drones) are chasing you.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)hubris we are good....we are the way, whatever. This is not what my father fought for.
In May of 2002 I visited my father in a hospital room and told him my story of the hassle I was put through in the Duluth,MN airport as I started my journey to visit him. Same thing in Minneapolis. Then weather delay. Ended up driving to Midway Airport in Chicagoland to get my luggage which had all ready been sent ahead and then onward to the hospital in NW Indiana.
When I finished my story, tears rolled from his 90 yr. old eyes and he shook his head...in disbelief. This was an FBI SAC for many years. He couldn't believe what the USA was doing to its citizens at airports. He died about 14 hours later. I'll never forget it. What we have today with this spying on U.S. citizens is not what he fought for to keep us safe. Our country needs to take a long look at itself in a magnifying mirror. imho
edit: spelling
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)and it's good to be on the same wave with someone who gets it. If we really want to honor our parents we need to look at this surveillance/ invasion of privacy with clear eyes, not eyes clouded with nostalgia for what was. It is a vastly different world and it is our job to make a correction now. Those who think this massive data mining project is OK won't be helping us do that. But it's a deal breaker for me--I won't be supporting any politician who continues to defend it, only those who have a concrete plan to protect US & world citizens from any such thing as PRISM etc, (starting now).
to your Dad, who saw what needs to happen but ran out of time--and to you, who got the message & brought it here. Solidarity.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)My mother was a newspaper reporter all her life. Her first vote was for John Kennedy. She died during the height of the reign of Booshcheney and was agonized about the turn the country was taking, glued to CNN. She said, "All this (meaning slowly dying) and George Bush too!" I carry on for her like you do for your Dad.
Til we meet again, mg
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)nor does greenwald, They'll both go down over this and should as far as I'm concerned
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Melvin Purvis?
bowens43
(16,064 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)themselves. Chomsky has recognized this. Odd that he supports Snowden.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)There was one in this thread, who had newly joined DU, and he was zapped quickly. "Name removed" is all that is left of him.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)position on anything. They are designed for one purpose and one purpose only in this kind of setting: to cause trouble.
patrice
(47,992 posts)when the same thing is done to you.
What's your problem with "low post count" newcomers coming to the DU?
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)they still ruin DU for sane people as long as everyone keeps being provoked by deliberate provocations
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Why on Earth would anyone want to base their opinions on facts?
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)you shouldn't be turning over documents to foreign non-allied nations regarding surveillance on them by your own government. I'm sorry but Snowden destroyed whatever discussion he wanted to have when he decided to do that and it's his own fault.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Aside from the things he made public to everyone... can you provide some links to where he specifically gave foreign governments intelligence?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Sunshine is a wonderful thing.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)why you get to assert what Snowden did or did not do, and why you are bent on vilifying him and his supporters.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)but I still like some things about Obama
politicasista
(14,128 posts)Would say hate, but that is too strong.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Sure are a lot of woken-up accounts running around GD these days.
politicasista
(14,128 posts)Sorry that hurts.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)~George Orwell
Response to Galraedia (Original post)
whatchamacallit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Progressive dog
(6,921 posts)The Snowden fan club is now working on a response which ignores what he actually said.
This is my view too.
"He seems more like an anti-government libertarian hell-bent on making the United States look bad rather than someone concerned about the privacy of American citizens. "
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is making President Obama look bad. That seems to be enough for several to condemn him to Hell. Nothing he revealed phases those folks, it's the fact that It made President Obama look bad that is the problem.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)I'm sorry but what does President Obama have to do with this? The Patriot Act was extended by the majority of Congress with bi-partisan support. So your complaint is that he did not veto it and waste taxpayer's money and time on something Congress would easily be able to overturn?
I'm not blaming Obama here, at all. I'm blaming folks that try to paper over this like it's going to work at deflecting what is tantamount to a huge invasion of privacy. Appeals to Cult of Personality are not going to fly with those that didn't like this kind of crap under Bush (where the right tried to appeal to authority) and they aren't going to work under Obama, either.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)The president should sign whatever comes to his desk with a veto proof majority because it would be a waste of taxpayer's money and time if it had to go back to congress for another vote? Congress can spend time naming dozens of post offices, but voting on something after it is vetoed is a waste of time and money?
BTW, the Patriot Act re-authorization that Obama signed DID NOT have a veto proof majority in the house and wouldn't have been overridden had Obama vetoed it. Of course Obama would never veto it, not because it wastes time and money to re-vote in Congress, but because HE SUPPORTS IT.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I was just going to say that. It only had like 250 in the House.
As if that would even be a reason to sign a bill anyway.
Completely ridiculous.
Response to Galraedia (Reply #57)
limpyhobbler This message was self-deleted by its author.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)I think you implied the Patriot act renewal passed by a veto-proof majority. It did not.
Even if it did, he should still veto it. The amount of tax money you are talking about wasting is inconsequential. It's a completely trivial point.
It is Obama's fault because he is the President executing all the surveillance. He is in charge of the NSA, FBI, DHS, CIA, DIA, etc, etc,. So he is the one in charge of it. He could have stopped the bad stuff if he had wanted to.
You seem to be pretending that he wanted to stop this activity and either there was nothing he could do, or it would have been a waste of time to try, or something like that.
Obama owns the Patriot Act.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Like he promised or to close his torture center in Cuba ?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Now I understand.
My bad...
OK, See ya all next month!
patrice
(47,992 posts)reciprocate. Otherwise, one's behavior entitles others to the same bigotry that one displays and whatever truth one does have to offer ends up being preached only to the choir . . . some people call that mutual mental masturbation and if that's okay it's cause to infer that one's truth possibly matters less than self gratification does.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Those that truly don't WANT to be objective, don't WANT information and don't WANT discussion, only to derail the conversation and make it about the messenger not the message, it's irrelevant because they won't listen anyway.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Response to Galraedia (Original post)
Cali_Democrat This message was self-deleted by its author.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)i suppose.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Is this a recurring post?
I'm an interloper who only came here to dodge the voter worry warting that was going on leading up to the election. I always thought this was a bastion of democratic thought. I did not realize it could get as bad as a freeper page.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)yes, it's that recurring.
everything else you said sounded like gibberish, sorry.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)It's ok... no reason to apologize if english is not your first language.
Where are you from?
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)ur doing it wrong.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Yes, Democrats criticize them. Of course it's going to get that bad. I don't particularly like Democrats acting like Republicans, and you can't shame me into liking their policies either, just because it might be bad for a Democrat.
I didn't vote for Mitt Romney, I voted for President Obama, and I expect him to act like President Obama the Democrat not Mitt Romney the Republican that says one thing in public and does another in private that does not match what was said.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I hate the blue links.
patrice
(47,992 posts)case on this or any other issue, because it amounts to "Hate that other DU -er good! Hate Snowden bad" so how are we to trust your case for why we should not hate Snowden?
I recommend that you do us a favor and keep your hate to yourself.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)that would be the message, or at least the appearance of the message, not the messenger. I agree it is an entirely superficial opinion, and that really the content of the message, not its appearance, not how it was delivered, who delivered it, whether the person delivering the message is heroic or despicable or has clean underwear, that is really important. Wouldn't you agree?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)of the Patriot Act.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)The man did one thing right: by basically doing a whole drama queen act, and now a disappearing act, he's brought huge publicity to the problem of the NSA and the Patriot Act. That's a very good thing.
The rest of what he did was and continues to be traitorous. Giving the Chinese specific info on hacking, even though I'm sure they knew that stuff already, was certainly criminal. Offering to give specific info on hacking to still more journalists in more countries also was. These are acts against the interests of the United States that have zero to do with the privacy rights issue re the NSA's vacuuming up of phone & Internet data.
All countries spy. No country wants to see specific info about how it spies on others released to the people they're spying on. Guess what people? That includes the US. The rest of the world would be more surprised if we didn't use hacking to spy on them than if we did, more than likely.
So, Snowden did exactly one thing right. For the rest, he needs to pay.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)1.- Trash thread...it will make it go away
2.- Ignore the posters you take issue with
3.- Go to potions and mass hide any threads with Snowden and or NSA in the subject tittle.
The subject ain't going away no matter how hard you stamp yer feet
creon
(1,183 posts)I have not decided about Snowden. I do not know, with certainty, what he took. I do not know, with certainty, anything useful about his dealings with Greenwald. I do not know his dealings with either China or Russia.
I suspect - and this view will change with more evidence - that Snowden is a naive and foolish young man who is being used.
This is separate from the Patriot Act and the consequences of that act. I think that law is bad law and it needs to be heavily revised.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Was it not immediately obvious that the sole entire purpose of this ginned up "whistleblower" episode is to kneecap the US president and interfere with his domestic legislation and international diplomacy?
Considering that we've seen this entire drama once already, complete with interchangeable lead performers and nearly identical supporting players, this should not be so hard to figure out, should it?
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Are you saying this kid Snowden came forward with the sole intention of thwarting the president?
He made himself a pariah to half the country because he wanted to "kneecap the US President and interfere with his domestic legislation and international diplomacy"?
Is that a 'Conspiracy theory' or sarcasm?
You know, there is a smilie for sarcasm posts...
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Do you want a link?
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Let me get this straight. Snowden gave up a six figure income, a house in Hawaii, and a ballerina pole dancing girlfriend...
just to thwart the president?
Because... why?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Snowden is just another tool. I don't know who or what he is, and I don't give a flying fig either, but I seriously doubt if he's who or what he says is, if that helps.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But I'll post it anyway in case you change your mind.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3037645
The info you want is in the OP and reply #3. And no, it has nothing to do with Alex Jones or his shtick:
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Obama is President, and the Director of National Intelligence reports directly to the President.
The DNI is in charge of the National Security Agency and has direct authority over its surveillance programs.
If the surveillance programs are illegal and/or unconstitutional, then that would mean the DNI is overseeing an illegal/unconstitutional program.
If the DNI is overseeing an illegal/unconstitutional program, then that means the President must have signed off on the same program, since the office of the President controls the office of the DNI.
If Obama signed off on an illegal/unconstitutional program, then he would be in the wrong.
But Obama is the President, and cannot be wrong, therefore the program cannot be illegal or unconstitutional and Snowden hates freedom.
See? Nothing to worry about.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)sheshe2
(83,940 posts)PRIVACY! Meanwhile their civil rights are slowing being taken away. Hallelujah!
Marr
(20,317 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Please.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I never said Obama was reading my emails.
frylock
(34,825 posts)do you hold them in equal contempt?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Only libertarians like the constitution...or 'thing like that
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Their threads are still stinking up the place if you want to find them. We are not libertarians.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Huge big fracking clue for you...those who actually like the Constitution are not necessarily Ron Paul fans.
Another huge clue to you...libertarians are part of the country going back to independence...it is a streak running through American history, far more in common with populist politics and far lest with party specific. You want to know two from the far past, just for starters? Jefferson and Franklin.
Chew on that.
You know who else is currently a Libertarian? Bernie Sanders, he shares quite of it with both Udall and Wyden. Both of those Senators are Democrats.
Calling somebody a libertarian, you might mean it as a slur...but those who actually know history are honored to be called such, especially given current circumstances. I proudly stand with both Wyden and Udall...you go chew on that.
Oh I forgot, they are also Obama haters in this black and white, you are either with us or against us...way of thinking.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's basically essence of vulture capitalism marketed with a catchy name and rancid spokesmodels like the Pauls and the Assange twins.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But there is no use in discussing history with not equipped with it.
The problem with the 1971 registered Libertarian party, only think tank at the time was CATO, and CATO is not randian, is the size of the tent...it goes from far right to far left, with the far right being the real loud mouths.
The only thing in common between all factions is love of the constitution... Above all else.
These days it's starting to shatter...in voting patterns, and at no point were they ever able to get above third place nation wide. I am betting, as they shatter and the GOP goes the way of the Whigs, at this time we need a new labor party.
But really, leave the propaganda and learn some history. Oh another famous libertarian, Hugh Long.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)but I'm talking about the nonfiction edition.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What you are passing is.
And you are as dangerous to the country as your counterparts who supported all bush did...because he was a republican. I lay the problems we have at both your feet.
I put country above party...you should try that.
And yes you are willfully ignorant. Don't expect any further responses to your insanity, it is a form, on this thread.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Nadin, please just stop okay? Libertarianism is a big fat fake load of baloney and I'm sorry to have to tell you that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Where exactly am I telling you to go vote for Ron Paul? Rand Paul maybe?
I will make it easy on you...NOWHERE...so take that and shove it.
Slowly again for the reading impaired...it is a Sub-current in us history, preceding the foundation of the Libertarian party by 300 years...and includes current populist Democrats, such as Udall and Wyden.
Of course I am not using your tendentious definition of it, but political science and history.
You might want to read some of those strange things with type from time to time. They don't byte...serious.
It is like anti intellectualism, and populism...they are there...in the background, part of the fabric of the country. It is part of the myth of American individualism. What...you think that started with Ron Paul? Are you that ignorant? Serious? You should read "A New Canaan" a book written in the 1600s. The idea of the individual as the center of all goes back to the Yeoman farmer, which actually goes to Elizabethan England and the 15 century.. But serious, that book is the first place where we find that strain in.
I recommend a modern day translation. Old English will give you fits.
So yes, we are having an error to communicate. That term you use as a pejorative does not mean what you think it does.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)But your part of this subthread was absolutely correct. You've definitely got history on your side on this issue and I can't imagine anyone with a degree in history disagreeing with you on this.
But generally, historically illiterate people react aggressively when confronted with historical context. I know that you've learned to deal with the nastyness. Nevertheless let me reassure you that you're in the right here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But we need to work at getting better with history.
I used to think that only freepers were that thick...unfortunately it is all deep partisans.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Libertarians: Still a cult
By Michael Lind, Salon, Tuesday, Jun 11, 2013 7:57 PM UTC
Another response to my essay has been to claim that a libertarian country really did exist once in the real world, in the form of the United States between Reconstruction and the New Deal. Robert Tracinski writes that I am astonishingly ignorant of history for failing to note that the libertarian utopia, or the closest weve come to it, is America itself, up to about 100 years ago. It was a country with no income tax and no central bank. (It was on the gold standard, for crying out loud. You cant get more libertarian than that.) It had few economic regulations and was still in the Lochner era, when such regulations were routinely struck down by the Supreme Court. There was no federal welfare state, no Social Security, no Medicare.
It is Tracinski who is astonishingly ignorant of history. To begin with, the majority of the countries that adopted the libertarian gold standard were authoritarian monarchies or military dictatorships. With the exception of Imperial Britain, an authoritarian government outside of the home islands, where most Britons were denied the vote for most of this period, most of the independent countries of the pre-World War I gold standard epoch, including the U.S., Germany, France, Russia and many Latin American republics, rejected free trade in favor of varying degrees of economic protectionism.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/libertarians_still_a_cult/
In whatever form it takes, Libertarianism by any name is still an evil scam:
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)With the wrong context of the word
We are talking two different languages son...very different languages.
You are talking the lanhuage of the misdirecting, dividing conniving politician...I am talking history.
If you want to counter a history and poli sci based argument, go to the American Historical Review, the British Historical review, or the apropriate political science journals.
It is not my fault you base your arguments in personality, politics of the extreme, and ignore history.
Salon...really...you are quite ignorant of history sir...and proud of that ignorance. Have a good day.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)In this case it also has a parallel fantasy history cooked up by publicists to sell to the masses like so much shoddy merchandise. False history is not history, though they're often hard to tell apart.
Ask Herodotus about that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Is not your strong point.
At this point...there is a backhoe over there...
Suffice to say it you just called Wyden and Udall members of a cult, and fucking greedy people. Why? You are willing to pull civil libertarians in the same place as Ron Paul. Your words are not just snake oil, but insulting two democrats, right now in Congress
The irony drips.
When confronted with facts you got no idea what to do with it. You doth protest too much.
Have an excellent day...the irony is just well...precious.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You know who you remind me off...your exact counterpart who happened to be an actual far right republican. He was proud of his ignorance too.
Exact same mould...idiocracy and true believer at his best. You are the mirror...you just vote for democrats.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
At Wed Jun 26, 2013, 03:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Historical context and history
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3101421
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Over-the-top false claim: "you just called Wyden and Udall members of a cult." No such claim or even mention of Wyden and Udall can be found in the respondent's posts. Dishonest and offensive trollery.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jun 26, 2013, 03:44 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: rude and idiotic
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: a troll with 122,000 posts. Yeah, right.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Seriously?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Trash and Ignore are your best friends. Really. Try it. Or go have a walk outside, hug a tree, do something nice just because. Anything but stop trying to use Alert as your personal sensorship device, its not going to work.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)at the expense of policy.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's one issue and Obama has in fact addressed it in the commendable ways we've learned about in the last two weeks. Great! It's under control. Now can we get back to say, passing a budget? Syria? Voting rights? Election strategy? There's a world beyond the NSA and I don't remember the 4th amendment troubling any one here over much until a certain Snowman took the stage two weeks ago.
Are you an apologist?
I've heard about them.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)This is a partisan discussion board. Welcome to DU.
frylock
(34,825 posts)you're an apologist, an Obama sycophant, and i'm done wasting my time on your trolling.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...to the end-all-be-all. What the fuck, dude? Do you have absolutely no sense of civics within your character? It's downright insulting to come to this board and see some know-nothing willing to throw away the 4th Amendment because there are more important things to worry about. You've shown that you lack the necessary judgment to speak on matters of real importance. Yeah, I know, you'll say whatever the hell you feel like saying, etc, etc. More's the pity.
tblue
(16,350 posts)The Constitution is all that matters.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)But your concern is noted.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)...the American People, and the people of the world!
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)people who are angry about domestic surveillance, and people who are angry that some nobody made Obama look bad.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Your argument is that... Bush did, too? Yeah, I think most people here were not fond of Bush.
:/
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)My point is that we have a system of checks and balances. You're acting as if the president wrote the law and past it himself.
frylock
(34,825 posts)he could've vetoed it. it's what I would've expected of a "constitutional scholar."
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)the bill was not veto proof. mister constitutional scholar should've shot it down.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Tea Baggers use that argument a lot.
RL
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and reports directly to the President.
If the President did not want to continue the surveillance program put into place by Bush and Cheney, all he would need to do is instruct the DNI to discontinue the program.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)something bad happens... let's say something worse than 911 for the sake of trying to foresee some consequences here....
oops... yeah, right... the repukes just effin JUMP on the occasion to start their now LEGENDARY FINGER-POINTING in who's direction, ya think????
yeah...
The President Of The United States is a prevoyant man. You're obviously not.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then he's a poor, poor Democrat.
Here's a real Democrat:
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)They didn't own all the airwaves then, and these airwaves were 'local' airwaves, not 'global' (yet).
So you don't care today's repukes would systematically destroy everything once they would gain complete control over all governments and hold on to them by accusing all Dems of being responsible for (whatever) for years and years to come?
Well... I'm glad Obama is the President today and you're not.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)then by God he needs to stand up to those thugs, not acquiesce to them.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)And no, nobody's perfect.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)I imagine mcworst/paline or rmoney/lyan would have not done 99% of these...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But the idea that the President can't discontinue an unconstitutional surveillance program because the Republicans would use it as fodder for a political attack is unacceptable. On issue of key importance, such as our First and Fourth Amendment rights, a leader has to LEAD - sometimes at personal cost to himself.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Obama himself will do just fine in any case, but about the social groups who would stand at the losing end, if the repukes would successfully fear-monger their way back in control of all branches and perhaps for decades, after their systematic repeals of everything on that list (and even more).
Anyway, you got it all wrong so there is no point of explaining more for me.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)He used to talk about doing that. Until he got the power, then he changed his mind.
You can't have it both way. You can't heap praises on him when something good happens and then talk about how powerless he is when something bad is happeneing.
totodeinhere
(13,059 posts)know that. But part of winning a presidential election is trying to reverse wrongs from the past rather than making excuses.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)I was almost taking this shit serious for a minute...
What the Fuck!? Look at the time!
Holy Crap! That's two hours I'll never get back.
See?
This is why I don't come here that often... WTF... It's someone elses turn to deal with the kneecapping 'Conspiracy Theory' guy.
I'm outta here...
Fuck.
I can't believe how much time I wasted on this...
I need that speed reading book...
And typing... I obviously... dammit!
I'm out!
Bingo!
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)he sometimes does this all on his own--like most human beings.
My issue with Snowden is, from all current appearances, he went beyond being a whistle blower and went off to China and Russia and may or may not be trading secrets. He's already indicated he wants to pass out all the info he took to journalists of each country. That's treasonous and that puts the lives of operatives in the field in danger.
Did it piss you off when Valerie Plame was outed by Bushco? If so, you should be pissed that Snowden may well have outed many more operatives than one and with these operatives in the field, not based in a DC office, this puts their lives in danger. It doesn't matter your opinion on whether or not the US (or any other country for that matter) should be spying but it should matter that some little anti-government twerp may be endangering the lives of brave US citizens as we speak. Who's to say he doesn't have info on our soldiers in Afghanistan? If so, is he going to give the info to the journalists there and "let them decide" if it needs to be reported?
Demit
(11,238 posts)Wow. You've certainly made a definitive case!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)"In a way, we as U.S. citizens owe Edward Snowden a thank you for having brought this issue to the forefront and so that we can begin to have a serious and genuine conversation about these issues."
Plame said she has "great respect" for journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Snowden story, saying "he has written eloquently for years on these issues in a very serious, sustained manner."
She added that she believes the conversation should focus less on Snowden and more on the questions he raised, since "his fate is already foregone."
"He will be abused, he will be punished," Plame said of Snowden. "Perhaps he could have done it in a different way, but that's not the conversation we should be having."
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)totally agree with that point of view. However, if he gave information to China or Russia (or any other country as he intends to do) that is a different matter all together.
patrice
(47,992 posts)ever again.
The Golden Rule really isn't that hard to understand.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)Nice to see someone who understands the situation.
That traitor should be brought back in chains..and all those that think he is a hero should answer for their support if there is a successful attack on the US. I guess some here believe Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin are right when they say Obama does not have American values..
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)"should answer for their support" sounds ominous
quinnox
(20,600 posts)For expressing sympathy or support for a "traitor" like Snowden. And it will be all our fault if there is another attack on the U.S.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)What am I supposed to do with it now?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)I think he is out to hurt the US and make money!
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Feel free.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)His life is over whether he's a saint or a sinner, whether he spends what's left of it looking over his shoulder in a federal prison or a foreign embassy. So, what do we do about the NSA and our crooked government?
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)of DC. Soon now. Very soon.
longship
(40,416 posts)Hyperbole breeds hyperbole.
Chair throwing breeds chair throwing.
Defenestration breeds defenestrations.
All of them make DU suck a bit more.
The alternative is to use DU as a community site for common cause to elect Democratic Party candidates for office.
If you disagree, you may be in the wrong place. Read the ToS for details.
The OP threw the first chair here, IMHO. Maybe that was its intent. Regardless, I can neither support the OP, nor many of the responses.
It's a disgusting display.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)They were already ready to hunt him for espionage just for revealing the NSA dragnet surveillance on Americans.
Anyway: We shouldn't be doing mass surveillance on the people of any country.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)Acting like this is something we just discovered is pretty stupid when it was exposed years ago. This anti-government paranoia people are having is also a little annoying. I thought Snowden was paranoid but had good intentions until he started running his mouth off to China about the United States spying on them. Keep in mind that he did this weeks after China hacked into our computers and stole around 12 secret military blueprints from the Pentagon. I don't see Snowden criticizing China for that but he seems more than eager to criticize his own country, so he is obviously not on a quest to defend international civil liberties.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)The US government was using secret interpretations of the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act to do dragnet mass surveillance on communications of the American people, and other people. And the government was trying to keep it a secret. To pretend otherwise is "pretty stupid". I usually don't stoop to that level but it seems that is the level you are operating at.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)The interpretation you're talking about is the Patriot Act's Section 215 -- as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was the basis for a secret court order demanding Verizon records that show originating and terminating phone numbers, their location, time and duration. The order does not permit the collection of the content of communications, so it's not a wiretap. If you're collecting content, then there is a privacy interest of individuals, but with these business records -- what the government is calling telephony metadata -- there is not the same expectation of privacy.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)A: So nobody could challenge the law. If somebody would have got on this website a few months ago and complained about the government collected everyone's call logs, that person would have been accused of making stuff up without proof.
Q: Anyway, why should the government archive call logs of people who are not suspected of any crime?
A: They shouldn't. Collecting logs of who we talk to or what websites we look at is not harmless. It's a massive invasion of privacy.
Q: Does the FBI have permission to read anybody's email without a warrant?
A: Yes
Q: Is this just the tip of the iceberg?
A: You bet.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)mike_c
(36,281 posts)eom
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)least the more industrialized countries, probably have a lot of this capacity themselves.
Perhaps giving their journalists this information will make people in some of these countries question their own governments more.
Our Constitution guarantees us freedom of the press which indirectly guarantees us freedom of information. We claim that we believe in universal human rights including freedom of the press and of speech and assembly and thus of freedom of information.
You may accuse me of being a libertarian. I am not. But I do agree with the viewpoint of libertarians on specific issues that have traditionally also been the views of American Democrats -- such as freedom of speech and press and assembly.
Jefferson believed that these freedoms were universal. At least that is what he wrote in the Declaration of Independence although perhaps not in precisely the words that Madison used when he and his colleagues drew up the Bill of Rights. And I agree with Jefferson and Madison. The freedoms of speech, of the press, of religion and of the right to address my grievances with my government, are universal. The people of every nation have those freedoms. If my government's surveillance violates those freedoms for people who are not terrorists, regardless of where they are, then I oppose that surveillance. And I really don't see why they should not be apprised of that surveillance.
This is a problem with the global information system. Does it give too much information to the few who manage and control it? What would Jefferson and Madison say?
We need to have security as a nation. So do other nations.
But is our government respecting the personal security of Americans and of those people living in other countries with this massive collection of data (surveillance) program? I don't think so. I think this program empowers a small elite with information with which they can in the future although they may not be yet doing it, punish those who criticize or disagree with them simply for their thoughts and words and ideas.
This is an abomination. The internet is being subverted by this program, and it needs to end.
populistdriven
(5,644 posts)university?
trying my best to help the OP, whom I disagree with :lol:
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
ecstatic
(32,737 posts)If it's bad that the US has our info, how can it be good that China, Russia, etc. have it?
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)And the totalitarians who think suspicionless spying on all Americans, not to mention the rest of the world, is a good thing to do.
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)Snowden is a narcicisstic fraud who misrepresented his credentials to gain access in order to further his self serving agenda. This a-hole is a coward who ran to China and Russia for refuge--what a patriot!!!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Please watch this.
The surveillance on internet connections is part of a huge network that provides a lot of flawed data and nevertheless is used to target innocent people.
Not all the innocent children who have been killed in drone strikes were targeted by internet or satellite spy networks, but if even one of them was, the system is evil.
nineteen50
(1,187 posts)"With its grace and carelessness it seemed to annihilate a whole culture, a whole system of thought, as though Big Brother and the Party and the Thought Police could all be swept into nothingness by a single splendid movement of the arm."
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I've taken a long time deciding how to respond to Mr. Snowden's actions. Friends of mine and people whose opinions I respect are divided on the subject. Now the choice, thanks to you, is clear. When people come to Democratic Underground to defend a secret government program, authorized by a secret court and implemented by contracted employees of a private company, I say it's time to join the apologists for Mr. Snowden.
Screw the apologists for the NSA!
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You're mad he's going to journalists?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Yes...I am.
And while the Three-Cornered Hat and Musket crowd crows about this little Shit Traitor...
The Criminals on the US Supreme Court are stripping away voting rights.
Wow...I'm glad that the Snowden FREAK supporters are all about the Constitution!
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)using the issue as an excuse to attack people they were already attacking before
BillyRibs
(787 posts)Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)So only the privacy of american citizens is of any concern,and to hell with the privacy of citizens of any other country.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)do you?
Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)I understand your point,but there are a few more countries on this globe beside us.and china.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Big Brother fanboyz suck.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The American Government did the work, all he did to make them look bad, was tell the truth.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)when we no longer can feel free to express our political opinions out of fear of being "cyber kettled." Snowden has everything to lose and nothing to gain by his actions other than knowing he did his patriotic best to protect all....even ingrates. imho Have a nice evening!
politicasista
(14,128 posts)Support real, true heroes that actually stood for something like Nelson Mandela and John Lewis.
P.S. Please proceed and keep doing your thing Mr. President and Mr. Secretary. Haters gone hate.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Why not give it all up at once?
Why the World Tour?
Because he's an attention whore, in the end.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)But get ready to be flamed into next week, for questioning the almighty Snowden.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... think of me.
Happy to be of service.
Personally, I find authoritarian/police/surveillance/state assholes to be far more disgusting and dangerous than those that expose the evil shit they do in our name. But that's just me.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)As usual, I agree with you in this matter.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)clear explanation on why you do not like the leaks.
This doesn't really mean anything to me. Even if his motivation was lots and lots of money, I still wouldn't care.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Actually in an ironic twist, Snowden's leaks, especially his leaking of information to foreign governments, will probably only harden agencies like the NSA and CIA. They will be even more obsessive about keeping a tight grip on classified information.
Also, the DOJ will be even more aggressive investigating leaks and prosecuting those leakers.
If anything, Snowden's leaks may result in increased surveillance and even less transparency.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The problem is that Snowden went about it the wrong way and now he's divulging all kinds of information to foreign intelligence agencies. IMO, this will lead to a backlash which will cause increased surveillance, reduce transparency and increase leak prosecutions.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)However, I do agree with one addition, I don't think it makes any difference whether he gave top secret info out or not, TPTB will use any level of disclosure as an execuse to tighten the surveillance noose. imho
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)And as a result of the blindness of the far left, they will end up even farther away than the utopia that they desire. I have seen that movie before on economic rights, gay rights, drug policy, the environment.
patrice
(47,992 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Look at all the emotions playing underneath it...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Because he's being attacked, not because he's done anything wrong. The attacks are baseless. Doesn't 't mean they don't keep coming.
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)the law of unintended intended consequences -- now libertarians will really have something to bitch about
patrice
(47,992 posts)on this issue worth?
Maybe people don't accept the premise that dead people are proof positive that (rhetorical) you are wrong about this.
Given that, - since the surveillance is for threats, that is, to avoid dead people, we can assume that the pro-surveillance position intends that there should be no dead people or as few as possible if it does produce a security error - WHAT are the anti-surveillance parameters regarding the possibility of dead people?
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)it wouldn't surprise me if he really didn't have anything worth a shit to anyone.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)There is nothing different between Snowden and a cockroach hiding under leaves. If Snowden was true, he would return, get arrested and fight it out with the US government. But Snowden won't return because he is a poser and a coward.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)These threads are freakin' amazing. Best entertainment value on the planet right now. I haven't had so much fun since the pigs ate my sister.
Ter
(4,281 posts)Too bad he's too young.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Sorry, but none of them seem to give a shit about what you're sick of. They're more into the Constitution.
patrice
(47,992 posts)by giving THE economic advantage to propertied, white, males for over 200 years and then when we did finally get around to doing something, more or less, and probably less, effective about that, it was contingent upon everyone pretending that 200 years worth of advantage is completely ir-relevant to social and economic justice now . . . that piece of paper?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesnt matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
"I dont want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3510598
[font size="6"][font color="blue"]In a democracy, We the People watch the government. When the government watches the People, it's called tyranny.[/font color][/font size]
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)into this is not understood all that well by baby boomers. Younger adults don't view nationalism or representation of a country in high regard because they are so interconnected globally. Basically, a struggle on the other side of the world is a shared struggle which is why young adults care more about what happens outside of their country. Basically, young adults are less likely to be nationalistic (unless a Tea Bagger) and patriotic cheerleaders of their country. What matters are ideas like justice, freedom, and fairness.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)...blueprints from the Pentagon, but it's not okay for the United States to spy on China? Snowden doesn't have a problem with spying, he only has a problem when the United States is doing it.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)hacking into Chinese hospitals? Espionage regarding military intelligence isn't unheard of. Even Israel has been caught spying on U.S. military which is supposedly are closest ally.
I believe in loyalty towards humanity as we are all citizens of the world not to a sole nation. Maybe you missed it but most of the wars the previous century were because of feverish, unquestioning nationalism.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)The American people didn't elect him. And China hacks into our civilian and military infrastructure all the time. http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/china-tech-company-admits-hacking-u-s-telecoms/
They even violate the civil liberties and privacy of their own people, yet do you see Snowden complaining about that? This isn't about loyalty to humanity, it's about blaming the United States as if we're the greatest threat to it.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Snowden made information available so the American public and citizens of the world can make that decision on the human rights violations the U.S. has made against the people of the world. Furthermore, we as a American taxpayers did not receive a vote on how the PRISM program should be operated did we? Democracies to be considered healthy require transparency and debate.
As for China, it is well documented about their human rights abuses, so save your snark for someone that cares.
flamingdem
(39,332 posts)Sorry but the world ain't ready for their high minded ways. They're thinking iphone but there are still nukes pointed every which way and a LOT of class differences, most of which benefit them, though they'd like you to believe they're about that..
Libertarian = idiot
Pirate Smile
(27,617 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And you stand with the 1%. I hope they will reward you.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)If only I keep on their good side I might win the lottery. Fucking pathetic. And to think just 40 years ago there really was a middle class that encompassed a vast swath of society and we all could afford a nice comfortable life and we didn't have to live in a police state and there was a safety net if you fell down and couldn't get up. And we were working on expanding it, not tearing it down.
Fucking pathetic. And sad. So many have just bought into the bullshit and let the deal that Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and johnson built fall down.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Galraedia
(5,027 posts)And unlike Snowden's sidekick Glenn "The Lyin Libertarian" Greenwald, I don't support the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision either.
patrice
(47,992 posts)itself "the Left" (Ha!!) wonders why there is no viable authentic Left in U.S. politics.
Looks like the bid stands, per a recent SnowdenGreenwald devotee's response to this possibility, at millions of dead people are an acceptable price to pay for this principle, whatever-the-hell that principle is, because from the looks of this thread there is no agreement on that matter, so it'll be millions of dead people for, as usual, NOTHING.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)for being reasonable, but I will entertain you with my point of view:
Most of the underworld crime elements and terror cells use human couriers to communicate important messages, which is why what Cheney did by putting human intelligence in danger and exposing human intelligence was a big blow to our country. Bin Laden was found due to human intelligence work that took months to cultivate. Cell phones are used by terror cells to detonate explosives, improvised devices, or even to hijack U.S. drones. Internet sites are used by criminal/terror elements to recruit, but beyond that it comes down to human intelligence to determine anything more. What Snowden exposed is that the U.S. is using a vast net by saying you are guilty until proven innocent in a roundabout way. Human intelligence was ignored when it came to 9/11, Bostom Marathon bombings, etc, etc, etc. So this vast net is not only intrusive, but it has little value in countering terrorism and organized crime, and the ACLU has shown mostly it is used on the war on drugs.
Now as for your remark about the left. Obama is considered center left in the United States, but in all other democracies in the world (South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia) he would be considered a center right, or even a right politician. Basically, our country has been pulled to the right by the fundamental Christians and predatory capitalists. Not even the right wing elements in other countries feature a right that is so anti science and pro christian. Closest is in Germany (CDU). but Merkel has a pro science background.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We are all allowed our opinions. I don't trust him or his motives. God only knows what intel he has and how much of it he has shared.
BTW I do not support the governments actions on spying on Americans. I think the government should be made to answer.
Snowden made his choice and will have to answer for it.
David__77
(23,549 posts)Count me in!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)their childish, arrogant, and provincial belief in American Exceptionalism.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)why is a segment of American population defending the actions of the U.S. government? I tell them the U.S. media has done a poor job the last decade of doing their work basically.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)I've stopped mentioning being an American for that reason. Not that all of their criticism are valid, much of it is bigotry... But some questions do hurt.. And some I simply can't answer.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)I suppose he should go through "proper channels" - and be tortured first.
Me, I'm sick of kneejerk jingoism.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)And I'm sick of people in a personality cult pretending leaked documents are what are giving them a sad. They're pissed because he embarrassed Obama, period. If this exact situation had happened to Bush you wouldn't be able to read anything but posts with three hundred recs about how awesome it was.
Don't want to be embarrassed because you're spying on your citizens? Don't spy on your fucking citizens. It isn't complicated.
Galraedia
(5,027 posts)Snowden brought it up, not me. You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I'm not talking about him going to foreign countries to complain about U.S. domestic surveillance. I'm talking about him going to a non-allied nation with the American intelligence he stole from the NSA and informing them that the United States is spying on their country. Why would he even do something like that if his intention is to influence American public opinion on domestic surveillance? His motivation isn't to change America, only to change the way the rest of the world sees us.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)When you spend months wagging your finger at a country about hacking and spying and someone pops up with proof you were doing it to them the whole time you were whining about them doing it to you, it does make you look silly.
I don't actually object to governments spying on one another. They've always done it and they're always going to do it. I object to a government pretending it's above spying on another country and acting high and mighty about it when they're spying on the other country all along. They don't even have to admit they're spying. Just don't be hypocrites about it. Sooner or later it will get out and make you look bad.