If I agree that Snowden is a Libertarian coward and Greenwald is a cynical porn pushing tax evader..

[last1standing]

All this character assassination is getting old so how about we all try to compromise a bit. If I agree that Snowden is a Libertarian coward and Greenwald is a cynical porn pushing tax evader...

Will you agree that there are real questions about the NSA program and its lack of safety features to stop Libertarian cowards like Snowden from giving information to cynical porn pushing tax evaders like Greenwald?

Will you agree that we should look into whether the CIA, NSA and FBI are using loopholes in the law to gather intelligence on US citizens without a warrant by trading data with other countries?

Will you agree that we need to have stronger protections for our privacy in place than the current FISA courts which act as little more than a rubber stamp for the NSA?

Will you at least agree that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety?"

[Narkos]

1. I will heartily agree with that

[pkdu]

2. You were doing so well , til your last para Q?....just another Framer one liner ...

...that looks good on a teabagger sign...same guys thought non-white-males shouldn't get a vote at all...

[last1standing]

8. Teabaggers have little in common with Benjamin Franklin other than the choice in hats.

I have to admit that if you consider the framers of the Constitution nothing more than "guys [who] thought non-white-males shouldn't get a vote at all..." it's incredibly unlikely that we have much to talk about concerning US politics. There's no base to start from.

[pkdu]

69. Equally , if you take that sound bite from BF to mean there s to be no balance between the two

There is no discussion needed. It's a trite phrase fit for a bumper sticker.

[JDPriestly]

36. Benjamin Franklin was an abolitionist -- before it was popular.

1775

Founding of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (PAS), the world's first antislavery society and the first Quaker anti-slavery society. Benjamin Franklin becomes Honorary President of the Society in 1787.
Thomas Paine speaks out against slavery and joins the PAS with Benjamin Rush.

http://www.ushistory.org/more/timeline.htm

On February 12, 1790, a petition from Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society was presented to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. The petition stated that slavery and the slave trade were incompatible with the values of freedom of the American Revolution. The petition challenged the idea that the Constitution prohibited legislation against the slave trade until 1808 by suggesting that the "general welfare clause" (Article 1, Section 8) allowed the Congress to eliminate the slave trade and abolish slavery. The petition, from a website on historical documents, reads in full:
. . . .

That from a regard for the happiness of Mankind an Association was formed several years since in this State by a number of her Citizens of various religious denominations for promoting the Abolition of Slavery & for the relief of those unlawfully held in bondage. A just & accurate Conception of the true Principles of liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions to their numbers, many friends to their Cause, & a legislative Co-operation with their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Providence, have been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage a large number of their fellow Creatures of the African Race. They have also the Satisfaction to observe, that in consequence of that Spirit of Philanthropy & genuine liberty which is generally diffusing its beneficial Influence, similar Institutions are gradually forming at home & abroad.

That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty being, alike objects of his Care & equally designed for the Enjoyment of Happiness the Christian Religion teaches us to believe & the Political Creed of America fully coincides with the Position. Your Memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the Distresses arising from Slavery, believe it their indispensable Duty to present this Subject to your notice. They have observed with great Satisfaction that many important & salutary Powers are vested in you for "promoting the Welfare & Securing the blessings of liberty to the "People of the United States." And as they conceive, that these blessings ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of Colour, to all descriptions of People, so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expectation, that nothing, which can be done for the relive of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or delayed.

From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the Portion, It is still the Birthright of all men, & influenced by the strong ties of Humanity & the Principles of their Institution, your Memorialists conceive themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavours to loosen the bounds of Slavery and promote a general Enjoyment of the blessings of Freedom. Under these Impressions they earnestly entreat your serious attention to the Subject of Slavery, that you will be pleased to countenance the Restoration of liberty to those unhappy Men, who alone, in this land of Freedom, are degraded into perpetual Bondage, and who, amidst the general Joy of surrounding Freemen, are groaning in Servile Subjection, that you will devise means for removing this Inconsistency from the Character of the American People, that you will promote mercy and Justice towards this distressed Race, & that you will Step to the very verge of the Powers vested in you for discouraging every Species of Traffick in the Persons of our fellow men.

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2010/06/benjamin_franklin_and_his_figh.html

[pkdu]

70. Thank you. I learned some things about BF that I'm pleased to know...

I still consider all the framers to be flawed in some ways , but BF less so than I did.

[reusrename]

37. The Constitution was a compromise.

Still is.

[Fire Walk With Me]

38. No. no no no no no.

[DonCoquixote]

3. I will raise you one

It shows how low we have sunk when we can be brought low by two examples of bottom feeding scum.

[Pholus]

4. Ouch! May I borrow that? nt

[DonCoquixote]

5. by all means

damn the torpedoes!

[Pholus]

6. That one's been taken already... ;) nt

[flamingdem]

7. Yes, I think the two sides meet somewhere around the area

you're suggesting, and I appreciate your approach here.

Of course I just returned from the Democratic Club and oh dear I was the only non-Snowdenista in the crowd.
Everyone was talking civil liberties and nsa, fisa and since I know they aren't Libertarians.. well I will agree
to support pushing for responsibility on the issues and one that irks me the most is privatization of security
and huge salaries paid for war profiteering. Okay they made me use that word, I wouldn't have, but it is
true this grew out of the war on terror and Booz Allen etc are exploiting the hell out of it..

[last1standing]

18. Personally, I find the attacks on Snowden and Greenwald to be pointless distractions from the issues

Neither is a saint or without flaw. As I've done worse than any of the personal gossip that's been brought up to attack them, I won't judge their personal lives.

Regardless, I think that good, moderate Democrats have reasonable questions as to what is going on with out intelligence programs. Have they gotten out of control? As we keep hearing, some of this information isn't exactly new so how long has it been going on and what data are they collecting - not only from meta-searches but by trading information with other countries?

These are real issues that could have real impact on our future as a nation. While I don't think Obama would use the information to smear a political opponent (otherwise Romney would have lost by far more than he did), I don't think his staff is above using against someone they believe is an enemy (such as Snowden and Greenwald). Worse, I do believe that if someone like Huckabee or Perry were to get into the White House they would absolutely use information gathered by Britain to destroy Democratic opponents. There is no warrant necessary for these data trades so far as I've heard.

In my opinion these are real concerns we should be discussing. Whether Greenwald was a pornographer amounts to good reading but doesn't help us come closer to understanding the real issues.

[treestar]

9. There could be questions about the NSA programs but no one wants to discuss

the with any moderation. It's all that Snowden is a hero and the government should have no secrets.

[Bonobo]

12. That' a hilarious reversal of the situation.

I think you need to check yourself.

Most people want to talk about the NSA program and are finding that in fact the Snowden Circus is being used as a way to avoid doing so.

[Union Scribe]

23. Exactly and I just saw a prime example in another thread

Poster A:

Making it about Snowden is a distraction. THIS IS ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE STATE.

Do you even care about that?

Poster B:

Give it up. You lost your hero. n/t

Those making this all about Snowden desperately want to KEEP it about Snowden. Otherwise they'll have to talk about the issues, and they are on the WRONG SIDE of the issues.

[Bonobo]

25. It is like the movie "Idiocracy".

A tragic dumbing down of discourse.

[treestar]

47. So make another thread or respond to that post

It is hilarious to claim to be a victim of these terrible posters who only want to talk about Snowden. As if you can't talk about the SURVEILLANCE STATE.

I have tried over and over again to talk about whether or not this database is really turning us into a police state, or about what extent the NSA should have ability to find things out in the name of national security. Snowden's defenders want us to take for granted that it is an evil thing that destroys our rights. I have yet to see an Eddie-defender be even willing to consider the issue. We are immediately attacked for not taking it totally for granted.

[EOTE]

67. No one is suggesting that they can't say what they want here within reason.

What they're saying is that the ones who want to distract from the real issues are constantly bringing up Snowden, acting as if he's a hero to those of us who don't want the Government to have nearly unlimited ability to spy on us, are continuously attacking the messenger rather than focusing on anything of import. There are extremely few here who praise Snowden for anything else than bringing this information to light, yet all the distractors can do is talk about how awful a man he is and how we've all been hitching our posts to this evil man who isn't deserving of the word 'hero' (as if people have really been calling him a hero to any extent here). It's utter idiocy and the surveillance state apologists have been all over it. Either they're all extremely daft or they're extremely dishonest. Take your pick.

[treestar]

43. If people want to talk about it they can

Is there anything in DU SOP that prevents that?

Ignore the Snowden threads and post threads about the NSA?

Good grief.

[Pale Blue Dot]

13. Again, could Bush have stopped 9/11 with the intelligence provided?

I say yes. Explain why I am wrong.

[treestar]

44. Who knows, but unlikely.

Two of the hijackers went onto the terrorist watch list. At most those two hijackers could have been deported before the attack, I would suppose.

Al Qaeda did have a hard time finding hijackers. They could not even get the 20th into the US, as far as I can tell (bin Al Shib was his name, I think?) So they might not have found substitutes and might have had to use 17 hijackers. The one plane that did fail to reach its target had only 4 hijackers, but then was also leaving late and thus the passengers had some chance to fight back, hearing about the other planes. So the lack of a 5th hijacker was not the only factor.

[MNBrewer]

14. Or, everything the Police State Lite does is fine, because it's Barack Obama! AMIRITE??

Speaking of a lack of "moderation".

[treestar]

45. Complete Straw Man

I hope you live in a farm that makes hay.

[QC]

60. Quiet, you! You have plenty of rights!

[last1standing]

16. I think it's been a two sided affair.

Many have personally attacked other posters on each side of the debate as proxies for Snowden and Obama. If you (and others) can agree with that, I think a reasonable discussion could be had.

[treestar]

46. Maybe, though attacking posters as proxies for Snowden doesn't seem to be happening

Maybe attacking people for finding him a hero too quickly. Or just assuming a leaker must be in the right. That does seem to be a premise - the defender will talk immediately about how Snowden exposed "spying on Americans." I think most Snowden defenders take it as established that the NSA programs are wrong, in and of themselves, just because they involve "spying."

One does not have to be an Obama proxy to think the program is not necessarily totally evil, since the program will exist regardless of who is President, until declared unconstitutional or repealed. No attacker ever considers whether Obama might sign a repeal, they simply assume he is spying on them.

[last1standing]

52. I think everyone could use some introspection here.

You and me included.

I've read at least hundreds of posts that personally attack others over this subject in the last few days. I left DU four years ago because I realized that I had gotten swept up in that kind of thing and I'll leave again if it happens this time.

As for the program, regardless of who is in the White House, the people need to know that their liberties are not being abused. And I believe the only way to get Obama to repeal the program is to make sure he understands how much the people are against it.

[treestar]

54. Congress would have to repeal it

I don't think there is any proof Obama would veto that if it happened.

People need to stop with the extreme of "The government is spying on us" and "I care about the Fourth Amendment" as though those things are given and if we even want to discuss them be told we are "authoritarian" and so on. That's what has been happening any time anyone even wants to discuss the possibility that it might not be the End Of America that the government has any classified documents.

[last1standing]

57. The problem as I see it is mostly defensive.

(Please understand I'm talking in generalities. "You" does not necessarily mean you, specifically).

You're told you're wrong so you get defensive and tell the other person he's wrong without thinking about what points he made that could be correct. That person puts up a barrier because you haven't bothered to think about what he's said and responds with a sarcastic remark. Of course that leads to snark and then insults. The worst part is that each of you takes that animosity over to other threads where you attack other posters from the start and the process expands. It's a ripple effect.

I acknowledge that Snowden isn't a hero, he's a mixed up guy who may have done some good for possibly the wrong reasons. Sounds like nearly everyone I know. I won't put him on a pedestal and I won't be a part of smearing him for his personal choices in life. I'll take in what he's alleged and look to find out whether it's true and if so, what it means for our liberties.

As for Obama's ability to stop the program, he can do so at any point but the real problem is that the next president can start it back up. My opinion is that he needs to put in safeguards for the program now and then work with congress to get statutes passed that will put in proper safeguards for future administrations.

[Union Scribe]

21. What the hell website are you reading? nt

[jeff47]

10. No, no, no and no.

Snowden's character is actually rather important. Because he decided what to leak.

Let's take a more clear-cut example: It's been revealed that Issa instructed the IRS to ignore delays about left-leaning non-profits during their investigation. That's how he got the "IRS is going after the tea party!" story. He selectively revealed information because of his personal motivations.

Enter Snowden. He's leaked one set of information, in order to get everyone to leap to conclusions. We don't know if that is actually all the information. It's the story Snowden wanted to tell. Thus the personal foibles of the storyteller are actually quite relevant - they color what he selected to reveal.

[sigmasix]

17. kick and thanks to jeff47 for honesty NT

[last1standing]

20. Why does the belief that Snowden only leaked damaging info make you not want to look into it?

Wouldn't you want the benefits of the NSA program to be discussed along with the damaging info? What is wrong with asking whether there are proper safeguards on who can collect private information and how it's done?

I really don't see the value in saying that we should avert our eyes from a possibly major infringement of our rights just because we don't like the messenger. If Snowden has altered the information or distorted its value then let's find out.

Afterward, let's ensure that any safeguards that are lacking are put in place.

ETA: missing word in title, "leaked." I thought that might be important.

[jeff47]

40. I'm not saying we should ignore it.

I'm saying two things.

First, we don't know if we have the complete story. So we should be seeking a more thorough investigation instead of leaping to conclusions.

Second, the people trying to keep Snowden the person out of the discussion are wrong - until that investigation happens, the man is relevant due to presumably selective leaking.

[mhatrw]

49. Yeah, Snowden is holding back the NSA's GOOD spying programs.

You know, the ones where they spy on families to find out which kids don't get a good breakfast so they can make pancakes for them.

[jeff47]

61. Or you know, the one that let us win WWII.

Due to classification, we really don't have complete recent examples. But the precursor to the NSA is a large part of how we beat Japan in WWII. Their success directly lead to the creation of the NSA.

Shocking as it may be, the NSA really has things to do beyond storing the metadata about your phone calls.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. the problem with that line of thinking is that by analogy, we, the american people, are

the "japanese military" being spied on in your example. I can only assume that our government views us as presenting the same level of existential threat that the japanese posed to us in 1941.

[jeff47]

63. Only if you think the NSA is spying on us.

Which isn't something that Snowden has actually revealed. The vast majority of the spying he has leaked are spying on non-US persons. The only one leaked about US persons is the phone metadata retention. And that appears to be protected as expected via search warrant requirements.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. oh my mistake, I thought we were having a reasonable discussion about the limits

of national security. Obviously you aren't. Or perhaps you realized you made a tactical mistake and have retreated into simple bullshit.

[mhatrw]

64. I thought the internment camps won us WWII. n/t

[last1standing]

58. Then it sounds like you actually agree with my OP.

At least for the substantive portion of looking into what's going on with domestic intelligence gathering.

I also understand looking into Snowden's motives and whether he's selectively leaking information. That's fine. I just don't understand what his girlfriend's occupation has to do with it all. On the other hand, I'd like to know if he released sensitive, classified information to the Chinese and Russians. It's important to separate useful information that matters from the merely salacious.

[Orsino]

56. Yeah. The "no, no, no" isn't supported or explained.

I doubt that a serious DUer would actually believe some possible inconsistencies in a leak or leaker's background invalidates possible inconsistencies in the operation of government surveillance.

Sure seemed as though that was being claimed, though.

[mhatrw]

48. Oh my God! He DECIDED what to leak.

Only OFFICIALS should get to decide that!

Snowden is probably holding back leaking the NSA's GOOD spying programs to make the NSA look bad.

[jeff47]

59. The same argument applies to "officials".

Why else would I use an example of an official?

[Pale Blue Dot]

11. Speaking of bottom feeding scum...

Could Bush, with the intelligence he was provided, have potentially stopped 9/11?

[last1standing]

32. If you're asking me, the answer is "no."

Bush couldn't figure out how to stop a wrist watch with a hammer in one hand and a bucket of water in the other.

Could any reasonably intelligent president have potentially stopped 9/11 with the evidence he was provided? Yes.

[Amonester]

65. Dimson had a PDB briefing at his cartoon ranch and he didn't want to read it entirely.

Clearing brush was more fun.

He even told the staffer to leave, and that he "covered" his "ass."

I always said if President Al Gore have had the same PDB briefing, he would have taken it very seriously and that, he would have talked with his staff about finding a way to prevent the attacks, and perhaps by investigating thoroughly all pilot schools , their terrorist students would have been caught easily... or by ramping up security measures at all airports in time.

[last1standing]

68. Yes, Gore would have taken the threat seriously.

And he could have possibly stopped the attack without the massive data collection that's going on today. There's no way of ever finding out the truth of that, unfortunately, but I know he would have at least done his job. Bush the lesser couldn't be bothered.

[Hissyspit]

15. @jeremyscahill: This smear campaign against @ggreenwald is utterly despicable. All of the "reporters

@jeremyscahill: This smear campaign against @ggreenwald is utterly despicable. All of the "reporters" who participated should have *their* lives scrutinized

[Maximumnegro]

19. How about we agree all this should have been

dealt with years ago - and frankly has been SOP in some capacity or other for decades. I don't why the internet and social media was what finally blew people's minds about unauthorized surveillance and invasion of privacy. Minorities have been putting up with it forever.

Funny how the outrage breaks now that everyone else is subject to it.

[last1standing]

22. Couldn't agree more.

So how about we start now and try to at least partially rectify past wrongs?

[pnwmom]

24. I agree we need to ask and answer all those questions about the NSA and internal surveillance.

I hope you will agree that his other actions -- sharing documents about US spying on China and Russia while Obama was in the midst of negotiating with them, and threatening to release lists of CIA "assets" (i.e. people) all over the world -- are damaging to the US and a regrettable distraction from the issue he claims to care about (NSA actions targeting US citizens.)

[last1standing]

29. I'll agree that we should look into it.

I don't know exactly what information Snowden shared with the Chinese and Russians or how classified it was. If it was as damaging as many claim then yes, it was harmful and he should be castigated for that. I'd like to know more about what was shared and in what context.

The difference is that what Snowden shared with other nations is an actual issue. It is something that we should all care about as it could have far reaching implications for our security, economy, and our world-wide reputation. Whether Greenwald produced porn or Snowden's girlfriend was a pole-dancer is merely lowbrow gossip meant to distract us from asking real questions.

[pnwmom]

33. I don't care about those kind of personal things. But I am worried about what's in the thousands

of classified documents that he told the Chinese newspaper includes lists of US "assets" around the world.

[KittyWampus]

26. #1. Snowden assassinated his own character. #2. The latest crap about Greenwald is just crap.

#3. If you want to talk about the NSA and it's problems…. why not just start a thread about that?

Cause, yeah… I agree the NSA needs some serious reigning in.

BTW, did you know that Feinstein has proposed legislation curbing contractors?

You'd think so many DU'ers with their hair on fire over the NSA would be all over that.

[last1standing]

30. I've seen many threads dedicated to only talking about NSA abuses derailed with gossip and insults.

From both sides.

Feinstein's proposal is a good start and I'm glad it's been put on the table. However, I think that the problem goes much deeper than the private contractor issue. My greatest concern is the possibility that our spy agencies are getting around what few checks and balances are in place by trading private information with other countries.

I remember when it came out that Bush I was provided a dossier on Clinton by then PM John Major before the 1992 election. This kind of thing has been going on in some form for a very long time and with better technology the amount and depth of information that can be collected is staggering.

I'd also like to see better oversight by the FISA courts when issuing warrants. They have been notoriously slack in their jobs, refusing a mere handful of the thousands of requested warrants. And of course, I'd like to see the collection of millions of data items with one warrant suspended as I believe that goes against the very core reason for issuing warrants to begin with.

These are the discussions we could have if the personalities of Snowden and Greenwald were out of the picture. Sadly, I'm not sure that's possible at this point.

[GReedDiamond]

27. Agreed, and recc'd...nt

[arely staircase]

28. libertarian porn sounds like the most boring porn ever

what is that? Rand Paul fucking Ayn Rand? Hot Rand on Rand action?

[last1standing]

31. Libertarian porn would just be masturbation.

Two or more people coming together in an act designed to help everyone involved achieve the same result would be socialism.

[mhatrw]

50. masturbation and rape fantasies

Remember The Fountainhead?

[gtar100]

34. All the important stuff only makes people's heads hurt

Gossip is the soup de jour for the American palate.

But even here on DU it would be great to have consensus on this in agreement with you. Even if these two were everything and more of what has been said about them, there still should be a separation between who they are as persons and what they have revealed about the US government.

Our minds have become lost in the pursuit of personality over substance. Or at least our media has. Most good people are likely very disgusted and just a bit overwhelmed by the bullshit in politics, government, mainstream journalism, and business, and with reason avoid those discussions for their own sanity. The fact we like it here on DU probably simply means we're all gluttons for punishment.

[intaglio]

35. Finally someone showing sense!

There is no need to agree to anything about Snowden's or Greenwald's personalities or other activities but you have seen that the problem is the lack of effective control and the lack of effective legislation governing the activities of all US intelligence services (as well as those of other countries).

Attempts to lionise any of those persons or agencies exposed in the current media furore is pointless and should be resisted. What is important is continual pressure for effective oversight and legislation.

[JackRiddler]

39. I get your point but...

No compromises on character assassination of the people who are doing the right thing.

This examplary behavior needs to be encouraged. We will need a thousand Greenwalds and Snowdens to help put an end to the NSA-CIA-Contractor rogue state, its patent illegality and its budget-swallowing, terror-mongering protection racket.

And the calumnies and attacks on Snowden and Greenwald aren't just about distracting from the reality of the vast surveillance apparatus within which we now live, which they have helped to expose, but also about punishing them as examples, to discourage the next thousand Snowdens.

So screw whatever the fuckers think who support facilitated the Iraq invasion (Gregory), gave the green light for "legal" torture (Yoo) and started aggressive wars killing hundreds of thousands (Cheney), and screw all the corporate media bootlickers and hopeless party hacks and flag-waving authoritarians who join the pile-on. Fuck them sideways, seriously. There is no point to awaken people who are only pretending to sleep, no particular need to persuade them. Keep getting the info out to everyone you can.

[Recursion]

41. What's distracting from the real issue is absurd claims like the NSA stores the entire Internet

listens to every phone call, reads every email, and is every Orwellian nightmare come true.

It's hard to have a serious discussion about the actual abuses that are happening in the NSA and FBI when people scream easily-debunked bullshit all the time.

[sibelian]

42. No, they won't.

They'll hint at the possibility that they'll agree with your positions at some point in time in the future by saying "good faith" sounding things like "I do agree that we need a robust debate" or "I think the issues need to be discussed" or things like that but that's just to keep your attention focussed on them. Then they slowly change the subject and spend your attention on labyrinths of tangentially related material or endless "what if??????" or "WE JUST DON'T KNOW" questions, painting the issue as a series of nebulous interdependent issues too complex to disentangle (this is very important when issues are big and simple, like surveillance) the idea of which being to get you to lose faith after having given it, feel fed up and then give up.

When those tactics don't work they attempt stonewalling or mobbing.

When THOSE tactics don't work they just resort to perpetual assertion and kind of hang in there.

Have a look at what position their responses leave you in if you want to communicate with them "symmetrically" in good faith. If it leaves you in a position that costs mental effort, wastes your time or forces you to present analyses of entirely simple ideas as if they're idiots, you can bet your last cent that your effort expended on doing so is what they need from you, not the content of what you post.

You'll notice that they always keep their word count slightly below that of their opponents. They aren't interested in presenting a position for discussion, but bait for an attention sink. What they want is to present YOU with a problem that you can't solve and get you to give up.

[flamingdem]

51. And the response you left just me on a thread: "NO, MOMMY. YOU'RE NAUGHTY. YOU ARE, YOU, YOU, YOU!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3109535

Project much?

[flamingdem]

53. I forgive you

You are apparently in Britain and in that light can be pardoned for not understanding America.

[Matariki]

55. Good luck with that.

When the tactic is obviously smear and/or kill the messenger to bury the message.

But, great post. I agree with you completely.