I'll never understand people who take the actions of Snowden as a personal insult.

[redgreenandblue]

DU and other media have been ablaze with people calling the man a traitor, a criminal and other things. It is pretty obvious that his actions struck a nerve with some people and that people take his actions personal. I can't for the life of me understand why.

Here is the thing: Nothing he has done will have any negative effect on the everyday life of anyone who is not part of the ruling elite. There is a small chance that it will have a positive effect, but most likely it will have none at all.

So why would someone who is just an average citizen (which I assume that many of those denouncing his actions are) even care?

Me personally, I approve of what he did and is doing. Here is why: I am a both a romantic and a cynic. I take delight in seeing representatives of a seemingly invincible power structure appearing powerless and foolish in their words and actions. I find it inspiring and empowering. I find it to be a reminder that we are all human and that even the seemingly most powerful structures in the world can be painfully stung by small individuals, if such a sting comes at the right place and at the right time. The sting might not change the world immediately, but it may serve as inspiration to others, and over time things change for the better. It serves as a reminder that "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future." (Tolkien). I also think the information he revealed is useful and will empower small people.

If there were any evidence at all that his actions made the lives of common people somewhere more difficult I would see things differently. As of now, there is no such evidence. The worst that will happen is that maybe some rich person in a suit will have some explaining to do at the next board meeting or something. Nothing I could care the slightest about.

As for Snowden as a person, I care little about his politics or who he is aside from the role he is playing right now. Maybe he is a complete jerk and I'd never want to "have a beer with him". Maybe he is a Ron Paul supporter, which I am most certainly not. Does not change that I approve of what he is doing now.

I don't expect others to share my romanticism or cynicism. But I fail to see how anyone who is not amused or delighted by what Snowden did could be anything else but indifferent. Several abstract non-arguments have been made along the lines of that "it will make diplomacy harder" (which ultimately means that some guy in a suit with a huge salary might, oh the horrors, have to take their feet of their desk or something) or that "spying will now be harder" as if any of us serfs had reaped the benefits of said spying. Ultimately the world will keep turning and no one outside of the power structure will feel any effect.

I think it is because some people identify with the ruling elites and feel like the interests of said elites are their own. That is, IMO, pretty tragic. Ultimately, a worker in China and a worker in the US have more in common than any of them have with the ruling elites of either country.

I should add that nothing of this has anything to do with partisan politics in the US. Some of the loudest denunciations of Snowden come from people who self-identify as Republicans. I expect no less from them. What I wonder is why would a progressive denounce him.

[newfie11]

1. +1. nt

[BehindTheCurtain76]

5. because

Because they are already too investigated in a phony game...once you're in you are in. I extracted myself and finally began thinking for myself without cues. Love your icon...Gen. Smedley Butler could teach people here a thing or two...keep on rockin in the free world!!!!

[djean111]

2. Yes. This.

[Democracyinkind]

3. I don't agree with the course he took (not that he should care about what I think)

But I think this OP of yours makes some very vaild points. Looking forward to reading more from you.

[fasttense]

4. Some people identify with the ruling elites

Yes, they think they will be ruling elites on day, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[KurtNYC]

6. One analysis I heard recently theorized that people who don't really understand the leaked info

or its implications, are nonetheless encouraged to have an opinion. It is troublesome to voice an opinion on things one doesn't know well but having an opinion about another person is easy.

There is a theory that the personal perspectives of all people fit into one of four categories -- a focus on details, a focus on the big picture, a focus on emotions and a 4th one which escapes me at the moment. But for those who's primary handle on events is emotions, or how an event makes them feel, I think the leaks about surveillance make them feel fearful and/or angry so it is an easy jump from those emotions to the perceived source of their discomfort -- the messenger.

[Demit]

8. Could the fourth one just be people who don't want to know?

As in, where ignorance is bliss, it's folly to be wise?

It makes some people uneasy that things aren't the way they are supposed to be, the way we were (and are still) taught: America is exceptional, America is the good guys, and anything America does is noble & good and anyone who says otherwise doesn't love America.

[radiclib]

7. K&R ! ! !

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. I am the most politically depressed that I have been in a long, long time. If didn't know for

certainty that it would do more harm than good - I would withdraw my support from the Democratic Party. Not because I am so shocked and cannot believe the intelligence services are getting way out of control - even under a Democratic administration, not because I personally blame President Obama for this travesty. These are the results of bipartisan post September 11 madness fueled all; the more by the private industry of what Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson have called the Intelligence Industrial Complex. Just as there came a time when the Democrats realized that had made a mistake in Vietnam and came to the realization that we had to get out of that terrible mistake - I cannot imagine why anyone who would espouse liberal or progressive or even basic eighth grade civics class values - cannot see how dangerous it to continue down this road into an ever expanding Intelligence Industrial Complex. Quite likely the NSA are already keeping records of every time and place any of us communicate with anyone on the phone or on the Internet or by any electronic means. If they are not already doing this - there is a strong possibility that they are rapidly moving in that direction. Even if the Obama administration does not actively abuse the system very much - it is only a matter of time before it is abused by some future Dick Cheney or John Ashcroft. This massive growth of the Intelligence Industrial Complex can only mean that in time a whole web of clandestine surveillance and ultimately clandestine control will soon encapsulate all of us. The Snowden affair gives us the opportunity to stop, appraise and reverse the direction we are heading. But majorities in both parties - the media from Fox News to CNN as well as most of the liberal establishment - are not appraising the situation - Many liberals are now supporting that which only a short time they were denouncing with outrage and fury - So here we are as we sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science…”.

[randome]

10. "If there were any evidence at all..."

That's sort of the point here. Snowden has provided no evidence of his wild claims.

It's only natural when evidence is in short supply, one starts to look at character and motivations.

You keep hearing someone cry 'Wolf!', but no wolf emerges, you start looking at the person saying it.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dixiegrrrrl]

34. No evidence of his wild claims??????? Except for these:

The publication of Snowden’s leaks began with a top secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) sent to Verizon on behalf of the NSA, demanding the cell phone records of all of Verizon Business Network Services’ American customers for the three month period ending in July.
The order, obtained by the Guardian, sought only the metadata of those millions of users’ calls–who called whom when and from what locations–but specifically requested Americans’ records, disregarding foreigners despite the NSA’s legal restrictions that it may only surveil non-U.S. persons.
Senators Saxby Chambliss and Diane Feinstein defended the program and said it was in fact a three-month renewal of surveillance practices that had gone for seven years.
Note this: Snowden provided a copy of a top secret order which Chambliss and Feinstein then defended.
would they defend an order for which there is " no evidence" of it existing????

* In a congressional hearing, NSA director Keith Alexander argued that the kind of surveillance of Americans’ data revealed in that Verizon order was necessary to for archiving purposes, but was rarely accessed and only with strict oversight from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges.

But another secret document published by the Guardian revealed the NSA’s own rules for when it makes broad exceptions to its foreign vs. U.S. persons distinction, accessing Americans’ data and holding onto it indefinitely.
Those exceptions include anytime Americans’ data is judged to be “significant foreign intelligence” information or information about a crime that has been or is about to be committed, any data “involved in the unauthorized disclosure of national security information,” or necessary to “assess a communications security vulnerability.” Any encrypted data that the NSA wants to crack can also be held indefinitely, regardless of whether its American or foreign origin.
* Another leaked slide deck revealed a software tool called Boundless Informant, which the NSA appears to use for tracking the origin of data it collects. The leaked materials included a map produced by the program showing the frequency of data collection in countries around the world.
While Iran, Pakistan and Jordan appeared to be the most surveilled countries according to the map, it also pointed to significant data collection from the United States.
* A leaked executive order from President Obama shows the administration asked intelligence agencies to draw up a list of potential offensive cyberattack targets around the world.
The order, which suggests targeting “systems, processes and infrastructure” states that such offensive hacking operations “can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance U.S. national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging.” The order followed repeated accusations by the U.S. government that China has engaged in state-sponsored hacking operations, and was timed just a day before President Obama’s summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
* Documents leaked to the Guardian revealed a five-year-old British intelligence scheme to tap transatlantic fiberoptic cables to gather data. A program known as Tempora, created by the U.K.’s NSA equivalent Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has for the last 18 months been able to store huge amounts of that raw data for up to 30 days. Much of the data is shared with the NSA, which had assigned 250 analysts to sift through it as of May of last year.
* Another GCHQ project revealed to the Guardian through leaked documents intercepted the communications of delegates to the G20 summit of world leaders in London in 2009. The scheme included monitoring the attendees’ phone calls and emails by accessing their Blackberrys, and even setting up fake Internet cafes that used keylogging software to surveil them.
* Snowden showed the Hong Kong newspaper the South China Morning Post documents that it said outlined extensive hacking of Chinese and Hong Kong targets by the NSA since 2009, with 61,000 targets globally and “hundreds” in China. Other SCMP stories based on Snowden’s revelations stated that the NSA had gained access to the Chinese fiberoptic network operator Pacnet as well as Chinese mobile phone carriers, and had gathered large quantities of Chinese SMS messages.
* The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald has said that Snowden provided him “thousands” of documents, of which “dozens” are newsworthy. And Snowden himself has said he’d like to expose his trove of leaks to the global media so that each country’s reporters can decide whether “U.S. network operations against their people should be published.” So regardless of where Snowden ends up, expect more of his revelations to follow.

Source: Forbes....usually very pro business.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/06/25/take-a-break-from-the-snowden-drama-for-a-reminder-of-what-hes-revealed-so-far/

Note this:
The US Gov't responded to each of these leaks, defending them.
Not denying "wild claims" but defending the behaviors of the leaked material.
The UK government did the same.

[randome]

36. I don't see anything to support Snowden's claim that the NSA is spying on everybody.

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:52 AM - Edit history (1)

The Verizon warrant is legal and something we already knew about.

The info that we spy on other countries? Who could have guessed?

The 'rules' you refer to specify exceptions under very strict conditions. This is evidence that the NSA spies on everyone? When that first came out, someone posted that maybe the NSA leaked it because it actually makes them look good. Of course, different people see different things.

A software tool that 'pointed to' data collection in the U.S. Not much to go on there, is there?

The Tempora project is the only one that's troubling to me and I would like more information about it.

Here are Snowden's wild claims.

Snowden claimed he could personally spy on the President's email. Makes you wonder why he didn't snatch an email to prove it to us.

Snowden claimed the NSA had 'direct access' to the world's Internet providers. All the companies involved say that's bullshit.

Snowden claimed the NSA can watch our thoughts form as we type. Any evidence they are doing that? No.

Snowden claimed the NSA is downloading the Internet on a daily basis. Any evidence? No.

Snowden said he "saw things" but he has never said what that means.

He was a Systems Administrator, not an Intelligence Analyst, so he was never in a position to "see things" in the first place. If he somehow gained access through hook or crook, why didn't he get something to support his claims?

There is a reason China didn't want him, Russia doesn't want him and now even the Wikileaks attorneys don't want him. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023101737

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MattSh]

68. OK, they're NOT spying on everybody.

There. Does that make you feel better?

They only spy on people who use phones or the internet, which leaves out a lot of people under the age of 2.

Geez...

[randome]

72. If you want to believe whatever Snowden tells you, fine.

But why castigate those of us who want to see evidence of his claims before we trust him?

If even Wikileaks' attorneys don't want him, there must not be anything there.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[reusrename]

94. The Verizon warrant is evidence.

You need to learn what words mean, I guess.

The ACLU will use it to provide standing in court.

Before this evidence was known, the courts had been tossing cases because no one could prove that they were the targets of this spying (state secrets, and such). This EVIDENCE proves that the Verizon customers are targets.

Get it?

Evidence.

Proof of an important fact.

Proof contained in the document Snowden brought forth.

So yes, in spite of your frantic denials, Snowden has produced evidence.

I cannot help but wonder about posts such as yours. You seem to have some command of the facts yet you always seem to state the exact opposite of reality.



I wonder if folks here really even listen to you. I really do, because that would really make me wonder about a lot more stuff.

[randome]

95. It's evidence of something we already knew and had largely dismissed as trivial.

Plus it's a legal warrant. How scary.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[reusrename]

97. No, you should read what I posted.

We did not know that Verizon customers were the targets of the spying.

Court cases were thrown out specifically because there was no evidence of this fact.

He provided the EVIDENCE.

I am truly sorry if this fact scares you in any way.

[randome]

98. So all this...

...international intrigue, giving secrets to other countries, losing his job and girlfriend, threatening to give away identities of our agents, running scared after saying he would not try to hide from justice...all this was so the ACLU could file a case.

Snowden could have sent them the document. Job done.

The state of 'protest' in America is rather sad if this...THIS...is where you want to take up arms and demand changes in our society. Metadata! On a scale of 1 to 10 of things that need to be fixed in this country, that deserves a hearty guffaw.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[reusrename]

99. Now you are starting to sound a lot more rational. This is good.

As to the significance of the metadata, I have posted about it before:

76. Apples and oranges, I believe.

[randome]

100. You point out the possibility of misuse without evidence to suggest it IS being misused.

Get this: there is no law that will prevent anyone from doing whatever the hell they want.

Laws prevent nothing.

What the NSA has is the usual bureaucratic maze of regulations, rules and approval processes that work hand in hand with the law to narrow down how they can use the metadata.

Unless someone has evidence that the laws and regulations, etc. are being ignored, then why all the umbrage? Because Snowden told you to be afraid? You're really going to take the word of someone whose resume is a lie?

The courts have ruled over and over that the metadata is not your property.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[reusrename]

101. There is also nothing to prevent the possibility of a noble use, either.

This could be an incredible crime fighting tool, couldn't it? Instead it is currently being used to thwart the will of the people.

I wonder why that is? hmmmm.. Can it be because we have moved from a manufacturing-based economy to a fraud-based economy and the folks with their hands around the levers of power are the criminals and fraudsters we should be hunting instead of "terrorists?"

I don't understand what is so threatening about having this kind of discussion. Why are some folks so determined to shut down any and all conversation about a new weapon that can be used to thwart the will of the people?

I am ancient enough to remember the political debate over nuclear arms. It was also a new question raised by the advancement of technology, just like this is. Much of that debate was public discourse. We used to be unafraid of facts and we used to talk about stuff. Now, not so much. Why do you think that is?

[randome]

102. "Instead it is currently being used to thwart the will of the people."

What makes you think that?

You also don't know if the FBI is going through your garbage every night. You also don't know if the CIA is sneaking into your house and rifling through your closet.

But what would make you think anyone is doing that? Any evidence?

As for a crime-fighting tool, well the laws currently forbid metadata from being used for local purposes. It's only to be used regarding contacts overseas. Personally I would not have a problem with opening it up for that purpose provided enough safeguards were in place to prevent it from being misused. The kind of safeguards that already exist to prevent it from being misused.

I don't think anyone on this board is arguing against more transparency and less secrecy for the NSA.

But fear of government -fear of anything- should be based on evidence. Otherwise, none of us would be able to get through a single day without constantly looking over our shoulders.

And I'm 54. I well remember the political debates regarding nuclear weapons, too. This NSA stuff doesn't even come close to discussions about the annihilation of Mankind. It's like arguing over what kind of ink to write with on a burning piece of paper.

This Snowden event will result in changes in how the NSA operates. That's a good thing but it sure as hell was not worth Snowden throwing his life away, damaging our relations with other countries and putting the lives of agents at risk.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[reusrename]

103. I believe we are literally two heartbeats away from a totalitarian state.

I believe there is ample evidence of this.

As for the metadata, most of it is property, with real value, in dollars and cents, being bought and sold on daily basis.

As for a crime-fighting tool, well the laws currently forbid metadata from being used for local purposes. It's only to be used regarding contacts overseas. Personally I would not have a problem with opening it up for that purpose provided enough safeguards were in place to prevent it from being misused. The kind of safeguards that already exist to prevent it from being misused.

I don't know of any such laws. Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything else you just said. Snowden's sacrifice will bring about some minor changes but they will be superficial, not necessarily the more sweeping changes we need.

[pnwmom]

11. Did you object to people in the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame?

Snowden says he has lists of US "assets" --ie., spies -- all over the world, and he's talking about handing the lists over to foreign press and letting the foreign press decide whether they should be published or not. The names of countless Valerie Plames and their foreign connections.

Do you really not see why many of us are outraged about this?

If he had stopped with the revelations of internal US surveillance,whether he was correct in all the details or not, I wouldn't feel the way I do about him. But when he started interfering in our diplomacy with China and Russia, and when he began to threaten agents like Plame, I lost all sympathy for him. He's crossed the line.

[redgreenandblue]

13. As of now, he has done nothing of the sort.

No, I didn't approve of the outing of Valerie Plame, because it was "king on pawn".

[HardTimes99]

45. Nice metaphor! - nt

[pnwmom]

63. How can you say that?

He's stated that he has lists of our "assets" around the world, and he's stated that he plans to give them to the foreign press to decide what to do with them. But in the meantime, he's been in Hong Kong, meeting with a Chinese newspaper, and in Russia, doing -- what exactly?

You can't say "he has done nothing of the sort." All anyone can say is we don't know who has the documents he stole besides himself. Russia and China and he are not advertising whatever he's done. But we know what he's threatened, and that's plenty.

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. actually Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson have written on this subject

The NSA's metastasised intelligence-industrial complex is ripe for abuse

Where oversight and accountability have failed, Snowden's leaks have opened up a vital public debate on our rights and privacy

by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 June 2013 13.00 BST


Let's be absolutely clear about the news that the NSA collects massive amounts of information on US citizens – from emails, to telephone calls, to videos, under the Prism program and other Fisa court orders: this story has nothing to do with Edward Snowden. As interesting as his flight to Hong Kong might be, the pole-dancing girlfriend, and interviews from undisclosed locations, his fate is just a sideshow to the essential issues of national security versus constitutional guarantees of privacy, which his disclosures have surfaced in sharp relief.

Snowden will be hunted relentlessly and, when finally found, with glee, brought back to the US in handcuffs and severely punished. (If Private Bradley Manning's obscene conditions while incarcerated are any indication, it won't be pleasant for Snowden either, even while awaiting trial.) Snowden has already been the object of scorn and derision from the Washington establishment and mainstream media, but, once again, the focus is misplaced on the transiently shiny object. The relevant issue should be: what exactly is the US government doing in the people's name to "keep us safe" from terrorists?

We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks – now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget – have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.

Today, the intelligence sector is so immense that no one person can manage, or even comprehend, its reach. When an operation in the field goes south, who would we prefer to try and correct the damage: a government employee whose loyalty belongs to his country (despite a modest salary), or the subcontractor who wants to ensure that his much fatter paycheck keeps coming? - Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/nsa-intelligence-industrial-complex-abuse

[pnwmom]

65. Yes -- that came out a day before Snowden's

interview in which he talked about giving his documents to the foreign press for them to decide what to do with them. And if you read the whole thing, it is addressed entirely to Snowden's claims about internal US surveillance -- which I agree should be strongly debated and addressed.

However, I doubt that Valerie Plame would feel the same about his threat to release the names of "assets" like her all over the world.

[Myrina]

24. But but but ... according to POTUS, PRISM only collects metadata ...

.... so if that's the case, how could Snowden (or any other Booz-contracted-snoop) have actual information on identities?

Unless POTUS wasn't being completely honest about the full scope of PRISM.
That, or Snowden - the "loser" & "drop out" is bluffing.

Folks need to pick one side and stick with it.

[pnwmom]

70. No, you are incorrect. In the US, without a warrant, only telephone meta-data is collected,

according to POTUS and others.

PRISM collects detailed information related to foreign nationals outside of the US. That's why Snowden might have had access to those lists, depending on his hacking skills. Or maybe he's lying.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. Valerie Plame says, "In a way, we as U.S. citizens owe Edward Snowden a thank you....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/valerie-plame_n_3466824.html

"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."

[pnwmom]

75. That was written only about internal US surveillance and it was written the day before

he gave the interview to the Chinese newspaper in which he said he would be giving his documents to various press all over the world so that they could make the decision whether to publish them or not.

I'm pretty certain that Plame would not support him releasing the names of US "assets" just like her.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. So, she's changed her mind? Link?

[pnwmom]

77. Nope. But she has a brain, and she's a rational, caring person,

so I'm sure she wouldn't want US assets -- people doing the same job she did -- all over the world put at risk simply to satisfy Snowden.

If you think she wouldn't mind seeing all her peers put at risk, then you clearly don't think much of her.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. I'll stick with what she said, not what you think she might think.

[pnwmom]

80. Right. What she said about US surveillance the day before Snowden said

he wanted to release his documents about foreign spying to the foreign press.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. I'd trust the press a helluva lot more than the NSA/CIA.

Despite their long record of humanitarian work and defense of privacy.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine

[cantbeserious]

12. + 100 - Well Said

eom

[emulatorloo]

14. No fan of Snowden but I agree w you on many points

I find the angry accusations of "traitor" to be way over the top.

[HardTimes99]

49. No less a personage than Senator Dianne Feinstein played the 'traitor'

card, to her everlasting shame and ignominy, thereby ensuring her name goes down in history with the names of people like Joseph McCarthy and Father Coughlin.

I guess DiFi never bothered to read Shakespeare's Othello:

Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. (II, iii)

[bobduca]

89. She's a war profiteering hawk neo-liberal gatekeeper

not a friend of liberals, peace or anything progressive.

And yet, I keep voting for her?

[Enrique]

15. you have nailed all of politics

not just Snowden, but all of it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. K&R!

[Civilization2]

18. nailed it; "some people identify with the ruling elites,.."

"some people identify with the ruling elites and feel like the interests of said elites are their own"

A strange form of transference is guess.

[Fuddnik]

19. It borders on blasphemy for some. It reflects poorly on their diety.

It's a non-partisan issue, and should be raising alarms everywhere.

Orwell was an optimist.

[Kolesar]

29. So strange: it is like nothing I have ever seen ,

...because it does not exist.

[LuvNewcastle]

20. I think a lot of these people who are so angry with Snowden

aren't really in favor of domestic spying, they're just angry that all of this is happening while Obama is in office. They're so afraid this scandal will hurt Obama that they're twisting themselves in knots trying to justify this awful spying program.

[Kolesar]

27. You also have an invalid premise

they're just angry that all of this is happening while Obama is in office

[uponit7771]

32. No, a winger hack and a paulianite report a story and it's taken at face value and then spun by

...bashers as something "scandalous".

It's not a scandal, nothing was covered up
No laws were broken even if I don't like it
Snowden is sounding like a jerk using HIS OWN WORDS (not the M$M or govns)


regards

[Doctor_J]

86. nailed it

everything that reflects badly on Obama puts a great many people in absolutely defensive mode, believing and repeating any defense that pops up, no matter how preposterous it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. It's an overactive sense of nationalism.

They perceive any 'attack', justifiable or not, upon the credibility of the nation, as a personal individual insult to themselves.

[NightWatcher]

22. I'll never understand the people who romanticize him

He purposefully lied to take a job with the sole reason of stealing government intel. He then ran away with said intel to China and Russia, with his final destination unknown.

His actions are not mythical or heroic. He shares a mindset with Ayn Rand loving minions of Ron and Rand Paul. He believes he's striking a blow against the Evil Empire that is us.

Why people on a Democratic Party supporting website continue to fellate him is beyond me.

[Johonny]

33. pretty much

I don't understand anyone that thinks people with security clearances should steal their nations secrets and give them over to such trustworthy people like the Chinese and the Russians. It isn't like other people in the program didn't come out right here in the US to intelligently discus their negative fears of the program. They managed to do this here in the US without stealing classified information and giving it to the Chinese and the Russians. I mean it doesn't take a genius to see the guy is no mythical hero. There is an intelligent way to discus the NSA and thoughts on spying. There s a legal process to whistle blowing that this guy doesn't fit either. Then again there is this weird cult hero worship of a guy that obviously doesn't have the free worlds best interests at stake. Why do I know this, because he ran to China and Russia, not France or Sweden. I fear the whole worship of this idiot will prevent any congressional interest in reviewing the check and balance process to the NSA program.

[reusrename]

96. I haven't heard of him expressing any Randian ideas.

As for donating money to Rand Paul, that could easily be explained as a calculation to facilitate the exact plan that you are acusing him of. He would know that his associations are being tracked, so what better cover to crawl under than becoming a Paulite?

It's a pretty disjointed political view, so it would make a good choice. You can agree or disagree with anyone based on the contradictory philosophies expressed in the New Libertarian belief system.

It's perfect.

[tallahasseedem]

105. +1

[backscatter712]

23. Authoritarian Personality Disorder.

They're upset that their daddy figure's been embarrassed, so they're lashing out.

They need therapy.

[HooptieWagon]

78. ding, ding, ding!

A lot of denial and cognitive dissonance going on. They can't defend domestic spying, and refuse to accept Obama is doing it. So they attack Snowden, and anyone critical of Obama.

[WillyT]

25. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Kolesar]

26. you have an invalid premise

people take his actions personal

[jeff47]

28. I don't think your central premise is as cut-and-dried as you think

Here is the thing: Nothing he has done will have any negative effect on the everyday life of anyone who is not part of the ruling elite.

The metadata was being stored by the NSA because the phone companies were not storing it. Not having the data could greatly affect a lot of 'normal' people because it would not be available for an investigation into any kind of crime.

If we ignore that how would the program benefit 'the ruling elite'? The program is a relatively trivial amount of money.

The rest of the NSA programs that Snowden leaked are what the NSA is supposed to do - spy on other countries.

[Plucketeer]

30. I'm with you here.

WAY too early in this unfinished saga to be passing judgement. People change - I have. I'd voted Republican until Clinton came along. Wonder how the "compassionate" would use that against me if I did some thing to bring me into the limelight?

[Progressive dog]

31. Snowden is an admitted law breaker

and I am a Nationalist. I identify with my country. They even let me vote here and stuff like that.(Serfs didn't get to elect their feudal lords) These things called wars are usually between countries and my country isn't the only one that starts them. I've heard that's one of the reasons most countries have spies.
I don't take Snowden's actions as a "personal Insult". He is just another paranoid. He is just another thief. He is just another leaker.
I want him to face justice in the nation he abandoned.

[redgreenandblue]

37. And to me, countries are for the most part arbitrary lines drawn on pieces of paper.

I can see how our resulting worldviews would differ.

[treestar]

43. That is so incredibly idealistic

That how can you survive? Then it would make no difference to you that you were in Canada, or Russia or Somalia or China. And people in those countries would have to all feel the same way for you to be safe in any of those countries. The thing is, they don't. You would be rolled over by the nearest bus anywhere else.

[redgreenandblue]

46. Well...

I have two citizenships and my genetic heritage traces back to at least four ethnicities. Thus, such a view comes natural for me. I recognize of course that some places are better places to live than others, but that has only indirectly to do with what country they are in. I think I could be happy living in Moscow, or Berlin, or New York. I concede that China would probably be hard adapting to, for the language alone.

[treestar]

52. I only have one citizenship so I don't have options

I don't see how anyone who doesn't like the NSA could be comfortable in Moscow. They could do a lot worse and be within "the law" as it is there.

Same for Berlin, though not to as big an extent. When they chose to, Germany does not hesitate to stamp on the same rights that are supposedly so harmed by the NSA at this time.

[Progressive dog]

54. To me, countries have more to do with form of government nt

[HardTimes99]

51. I'll see your nationalism and raise you Eugene Debs:

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

[Progressive dog]

53. You don't have to be a nationalist

but different countries have different forms of government. I like mine better than most because I have a say. A lot of them don't allow that.

[HardTimes99]

55. You said, "I am a Nationalist" and I'm responding that I'm like Debs

an "Internationalist" (Dem Socialist).

[Progressive dog]

59. You Quoted " I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world."

And I responded. You can be whatever politics you choose, at least in America.

[Doctor_J]

87. Most, or at least many, whistle blowers are

He didn't "abandon" the US any more than Daniel Elsworth did.

[Progressive dog]

111. Ellserg didn't flee to another country, Snowden did

from wikipedia

On June 28, 1971, two days before a Supreme Court ruling saying that a federal judge had ruled incorrectly about the right of the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers,[6] Ellsberg publicly surrendered to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts in Boston. In admitting to giving the documents to the press, Ellsberg said:

[Doctor_J]

112. So what?

the government is a lot more aggressive toward whistle blowers now than it was then. It is much more dangerous to expose criminal behavior now

[Progressive dog]

113. The plumbers are in Snowden's psychiatrist's office

as we speak. Being a lot more aggressive toward the filing cabinets.

[randome]

114. 'Leakers', not whistleblowers.

I will always call out that gross mischaracterization when I see it.

The reason Obama has prosecuted more leakers than other administrations is because there are more leakers!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[blackspade]

35. +1000

[woo me with science]

38. PROPAGANDA

There is an entire propaganda machine in place to manufacture the illusion that Americans welcome what is being done to us. The bizarre, over-the-top contempt/aggression you observe is social manipulation. The hope is that people will be reluctant to speak out in defense of the Constitutional rights that are being stripped from us, and that people will begin to doubt their own responses to the story and assume that all Americans vehemently take the side of the authoritarians.

Propaganda isn't just radio and TV and newspapers anymore.

The propaganda machine, like the government's spying infrastructure, is reaching a level of depth, interactivity, and microscopic invasiveness consistent with new technology and the deep pockets of those who have purchased this country. We have reached a point well beyond government billboards and radio broadcasts, to a creepy new reality in which Americans who believe they are merely having political conversations on the internet meet immediate, relentless, swarming, and manipulative pushback to any criticism they might level at the Powers That Be.

It is creepy as hell, and, when combined with awareness of the metastasizing spying and police state infrastructure, truly chilling.

[GoneFishin]

90. Yep. With 100's of billions of $ spent, there is no way they overlooked online discussion forums.

The only questions are how many are there, and which ones are they.

They are among us. There is a lot of money being spent, and there is so much low hanging fruit available to snoopers just by interacting through online discussion forums.

[Zorra]

39. Conservatives usually have difficulty thinking for themselves, and also have difficulty

understanding the difference between law and ethics/morality. They also have a basic need to submit to people and institutions they self designate as superior and wiser than them.

They do not trust their own judgment, and kneel and bow to authority, even if that authority is demonstrably evil, because those they allow authority over them give them a bit of certainty in an uncertain world. They can find a little safety and security knowing that they have an all knowing daddy or Big Brother can tell them what to do.

The link below should provide you with information that may help you better understand the phenomenon I am describing here, redgreenandblue:

The "Good German" syndrome

* people in positions of high authority convinced me that whatever they were doing was for the best

* I live in a civilized, democratic country, certainly the most civilized and democratic that has ever been, and my country wouldn't do evil things

* these people were going to destroy our country, so what we had to do was just self-defense

* our leaders are particularly blessed and wise, with a direct line to God, and would never do the wrong thing.

[forestpath]

40. K&R

[treestar]

41. A straw man

Nobody took his actions "personally." In fact the defenders usually make it a personal matter. You are defending him as if it were personal.

He broke the law. I am more concerned that people like him not be the ones who decide what is classified or not. There may be rare exceptions. But the whole Wikileaks thing and this is to make heroes out of people who release classified documents just because they did and found a way to do it. No issues about whether they should have been and stayed secret.

[Apophis]

42. I don't care if people commit treason in this country as long as it's in the best interests of the

American people. And what Snowden uncovered, despite the way anyone feels about him or his character, was good for the American people.

[OilemFirchen]

58. Wow.

Treason: "The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies."

That there's a fine way to do "good for the American people".

[frylock]

60. snowden has done neither

[OilemFirchen]

61. Not sure how that relates to my post,

but you're probably right. Nor has he been charged with treason.

[grasswire]

62. tell that to the founding fathers...

....who were traitors to their country in order to "do good". Sometimes, sometimes there is a higher cause than obedience to authority.

[Apophis]

64. Amen to that.

[OilemFirchen]

66. Not in this case, however.

So bored with the hyperbolic comparisons to momentous historical events. Sure, if you were born yesterday this is like the most seriously serious ever important ever event ever. Otherwise, not so much.

[Marrah_G]

91. Over-reaching governments have never been stopped without people breaking the law

DO you think it just takes people asking nicely? Never happens.

[OilemFirchen]

92. That's ridiculous.

Governments and government policy have changed worldwide, throughout history, via lawful means. Especially in this country, with a robust Constitution guaranteeing checks and balances, citizen representation, and frequent elections, countless oversteps by the government have been thwarted. The best recent example is Bush's empirical march into Iraq. Public opinion reversed (dramatically), a new President was elected, in part, to stop the escapade, and it was all done without, to the best of my knowledge, "people breaking the law".

[Marrah_G]

93. LOL!

[Recursion]

109. None of us have any idea what the collateral fallout of this release is

You literally have no way of making that judgement, and neither do I.

[HardTimes99]

44. You have the soul of a poet:

I take delight in seeing representatives of a seemingly invincible power structure appearing powerless and foolish in their words and actions. I find it inspiring and empowering. I find it to be a reminder that we are all human and that even the seemingly most powerful structures in the world can be painfully stung by small individuals, if such a sting comes at the right place and at the right time. The sting might not change the world immediately, but it may serve as inspiration to others, and over time things change for the better.

And Shelley once wrote that poets are the "unacknowledged legislators of the world."

[redgreenandblue]

47. Why thank you!

[whatchamacallit]

48. Pavlovian Partisan Panic?

The zeal and frenzy of the witch hunt is stunning.

[marions ghost]

50. I think you went a long way to answering the question

in this statement:

"I think it is because some people identify with the ruling elites and feel like the interests of said elites are their own. That is, IMO, pretty tragic. Ultimately, a worker in China and a worker in the US have more in common than any of them have with the ruling elites of either country." yeah

But I would also add that there is a lot of denial and a lack of perception about the implications of secret mass data-mining with no oversight and no real protections. We should never trust THAT much.

This truth is just too horrible for beautiful minds to contemplate. We would have to acknowledge that it is a gigantic betrayal of the public trust and and equal abuse towards other countries who are being "collected."

True patriotism would be to acknowledge it and push for major changes.

[Smarmie Doofus]

56. Rec. Manning also; maybe more so.

I think people who DON'T take a risk, who ( if they were never actually in the same position but ) WOULD turn a blind eye to "horrible ,unspeakable" things ( close to, if not exactly, a verbatim from Manning) are threatened and feel impugned by people who DO take the risk.

In other words... "if Snowden has the integrity to do something that I know I would NEVER do under the same circumstances.... that says something most unappealing about ME.

Which, of course, I'd rather not contemplate."

Hence the spleen-emptying invective directed at Snowden and ESPECIALLY at Manning. It's a way of protecting the ego.

And the ego must ALWAYS be protected. Distorting reality is generally the mechanism of choice. Displacing rage is another.

[quinnox]

57. its a combo of authoritarian types and Obama devotees (BOGers)

And these two elements can be present and often are, in the same individual. Authoritarian types always will back "authority", not just in this, but on other topics as well. It is a clear and obvious pattern. Why they do this, well, personally, I think it is genetic, and hard wired in their brains from birth. I have noticed this phenomenon and I would estimate 70-80% of the general population is like this. The "sheep", who almost always will place trust in authority, with no questions asked. The ones who aren't born with this mindset are always in the minority, and can even be uncommon to rare.

On the other hand, the Obama hard core people think its all about Obama (always) and anything negative or that makes Obama look bad, well, they hate it. And so their reaction is based more around personality. They don't really care about the issue, just that if it is putting Obama in a bad light. (whatever the issue happens to be)

[grasswire]

67. let's face it; some are paid stooges and apparatchiks

It happens in every kerfuffle. Hordes of them.

[KittyWampus]

69. Flipped> People who are VALIDATED by his actions. Further, you approve of his leaking to China

and Russia and where ever he's leaking to next?

You don't give a shit about your own well being or that of your family and neighbors?

[redgreenandblue]

73. What?

[ecstatic]

71. I haven't seen strong condemnations

I've seen neutral to slightly turned off to annoyed, but haven't really seen posts calling him a traitor.

I think I've been fairly neutral. I'm more annoyed by Snowden worshippers who are spamming the boards with one hyperbolic post after another.

[arely staircase]

81. i disagree

I am not the ruling elite but I have a great deal of interest in the US and Russia and China reaching agreements on arms control.

that is what China hacking was about (and Snowden betrayed his country in that regard.)

The Errors of Edward Snowden and His Global Hypocrisy Tour

The importance of China in global arms-control issues is hard to understate, even in American negotiations with Russia over proposals on nuclear-arms reduction. As Richard Weitz, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Affairs at Hudson Institute, wrote last year:

China’s continued absence from strategic nuclear arms control negotiations is already impeding U.S.-Russian progress in this area. Beijing has traditionally resisted participating in formal nuclear arms control agreements. . . . Whereas U.S. officials want the next major nuclear arms reduction agreement to include only Russia and the United States, Russian negotiators want China and other nuclear weapons states to participate. In particular, Russian representatives insist they cannot reduce their major holdings of nonstrategic, or tactical, nuclear weapons without considering China’s growing military potential. Involving China in certain U.S.-Russian arms control processes could facilitate progress between Moscow and Washington in these areas and yield ancillary benefits for related issues.

Is this the reason for the N.S.A.’s activities at Tsinghua? My intel friend held it out as a good, educated guess, but then made a broader point. Contrary to the depictions in movies, the N.S.A. does not engage in foreign surveillance as part of some James Bond–ian plot to take over the world. Decisions are based on the national-security needs of the United States. Actions at Tsinghua are not arbitrary; there is a national-security reason they are being done, whether about arms-control policies in China, something else altogether, or both.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/06/errors-edward-snowden-global-hypocrisy-tour

[still_one]

82. It has nothing to do with his politics, he conspired to do damage to the U.S.

If he stuck to the issue he said he was so concerned about, Americans that would have been one thing, but instead went to our adversaries and not only released information about our spying publicly on them, but at specific times during diplomatic meetings with them

Fuck him. I take it personal when someone tries to damage our country to our adversaries. It is just as bad as Cheney releasing the names of our CIA operatives, they are both bad

As far as I am concerned he can rot in Russia, Cuba, Ecuador, or wherever he ends up

[redgreenandblue]

104. "our adversaries"

In what way is Russia your adversary?

[still_one]

106. In their support of Syria, Iran, and North Korea. China also has the same reasoning.

That does not mean I believe we should be involved in Syria, I DON'T, however, compromising secure information to them, is wrong.

In fact exposing the spying that we do to other countries is also wrong.

That would have been a different issue than just focusing on the NSA spying on Americans. Instead he went international.

This is a typical libertarian agenda, to push isolationism, and that is why I suspect he released secure documents to Russia and China, not only on our information, but on our methods of spying.

He wanted to hurt the U.S., let another country have him

[Recursion]

108. Well, they're harboring Snowden for one

More seriously, they're not an "enemy" like they were in the cold war, but we certainly have an adversarial relationship on a lot of issues (Syria, Georgia, Iran, etc.)

[Taverner]

83. Snowden took a stand and is risking his life

He's on the people's side, not the government's

That bothers some people

[still_one]

107. No, what bothers people is that he is releasing our spying methods to Russia and China.

[carolinayellowdog]

85. nationalists vs. internationalists is as big a part of it as authoritarians vs. anti-authoritarians

Under Bush, I felt a certain confidence that most Democrats (excluding the Iraq enablers, and even they eventually turned) were more concerned about alienating the rest of the world than any Republicans seemed to be. The best thing about electing Obama in 2008 was how quickly and drastically our image abroad improved. But now, the relentless determination of some Democrats to frame the Snowden story in terms of personalities and domestic politics seems to willfully ignore the international relations aspect of the debacle. Or, if people deplore the impact on the US image overseas, they blame the messenger and not the activity that caused the nosedive in international trust of the US.

[Harmony Blue]

88. I agree

To me it seems that justice, and fairness should have no borders from my view. Hard to promote that when nationalism (double edged sword) is wielded and diplomacy does break down as everyone else starts to resort to nationalistic tendencies.

[Orsino]

110. If Snowden's actions can be shown to have cost lives...

...we should consider that carefully--next to the number of lives stolen by the government he's allegedly "betrayed."