Snowden and the paranoid state

[sufrommich]

On June 23, 2013, Edward Snowden left China, a repressive state with a vast surveillance system, to fly to Russia, a repressive state with an even vaster surveillance system, in order to escape America, where he had worked for a surveillance system so vast he claims it gave him "the power to change people’s fates".

In proclaiming his ability to change the fates of others, Snowden lost control of his own. He was lambasted as the instigator of international conspiracies and praised as the source of their revelation. He was at once a hero and a traitor, a pawn and a king, a courageous whistle-blower with the means to bring down nations and a naive narcissist, little millennial lost. He inspired debate and inspired even more debate over whether to debate him.

What are people looking for when they look at Snowden? They are looking for answers about how much states and corporations know about their personal lives, but more than that, they are looking for a sense that answers are possible. They are looking for knowledge untainted by corruption, as Snowden continues his world tour of corrupt regimes. They are looking for state agendas explained by someone without an agenda of his or her own. They are looking, and they are not finding what they seek.

Satisfactory explanations require trust in the person explaining. In the long term, Snowden will be seen as a symptom of a breakdown in political trust, not a cause. His legacy is paranoia – the paranoia of the individual about the paranoia of the state that spurs the paranoia of the public. This is not to say that paranoia is always unjustified. But it has become a weltanschauung instead of a reaction.



http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013858490192123.html


This is an excellent article,in my opinion.

[MADem]

1. I had to look up weltanschauung ... I never learned much German.

For others who are curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

It's an interesting article, it makes a few good points, but I don't think an entire generation is as paranoid as she claims--hell, plenty of them have to think VERY hard to recall who the President is, and others wouldn't recognize him if a picture of him was shown to them. I do think 'paranoia' is the flavor of the month, certainly, but I don't know that it will infect a generation or more.

And calling "pressure cooker mom" one of the "paranoid" instead a political opportunist--one who took a situation caused by her husband at his workcenter, and used it, and initially created some fiction to go along with it, to press a libertarian POV--is a bit of a bridge too far for me.

I think it's curious that Snowden has been held/remains (pick one according to your tastes) incommunicado for so long. That's a mystery that needs solving! I imagine that documentary filmmaker could be keeping him under wraps to make her movie all the more exciting...?

[randome]

3. I think Snowden has very deep-rooted self-doubts.

Last edited Mon Aug 5, 2013, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

He gave up his fiance without a backward glance. His parents, too. He doesn't appear to have any friends and barely made it through high school.

His conviction that he could be the star to make nations tremble goes hand in hand with his overall sense of worthlessness.

IMO.

And there may be something to what you say about his adult onset epilepsy, too. I hope we can find some of this out someday.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

7. Nice diagnosis, Dr Frist

[MADem]

8. Oh come on, it's a discussion board. Discuss--no one's getting a bill, so chill.

No one is being taken off life support, here, either. Edward Snowden was the one who raised the issue of his 'diagnosis'--not any Fristian actors on DU.

I thought, since he took vacation ostensibly to have his adult onset epilepsy treated, he just might have a brain tumor. Or a lesion.

Brain tumors or lesions can cause adult onset epilepsy, and they can also make people do things they ordinarily would not do.

It's a theory--no one is obliging you to get married to it.

[sabrina 1]

32. How do you discuss anything about Civil Rights with someone who doesn't believe in the

US Constitution? Best to just humor them I suppose. But it does explain their support for a huge Surveillance state. If you don't believe people are entitled to rights, what more is there to say to them?

[MADem]

38. I think your analogy is a bit of a bridge too far.

Especially with your last, hyperbolic sentence.

Where did you find all that drama from a little conversation about Snowden's self-declared adult onset epilepsy?

Don't bother answering, that was rhetorical. What more is there to say to you, really?

I can see from your "If you don't believe...." silliness, you've already tried, convicted and sentenced me, so there's just really no point.

[CakeGrrl]

49. How do you draw that sweeping, inaccurate conclusion?

But this clearly explains why you overlook outright insults to those who think Snowden should face up to the laws he broke. You yourself employ the rhetoric, labeling and hyperbole.

[Whisp]

16. Gather up all your physicians and do yourself a circle heal thyselves. n/t

[AppleBottom]

2. Pure propaganda. Hong Kong is not at a ll remotely like China anybody who has ever traveled

Knows this and the only reason why Snowden ended up in Russia is because he didn't want to risk transferring planes in a country with an extradition treaty with the US. Then the government cancelled his passport and prevented him from going to his final destination.

Snowden is not to be blamed for a breakdown in trust with the American government they did that to themselves. Talk about rewriting history.

[sufrommich]

4. Or next time just read the article.

"Snowden is not to be blamed for a breakdown in trust with the American government". Yes, that is what the article is articulating.It's not "propaganda", it's someone having an opinion other than yours on the internet.

[AppleBottom]

6. Sorry it reads like a bunch of dramatist tripe

I have a bad habit of tuning out when someone can't get their basic facts straight.

[Aerows]

17. "someone having an opinion other than yours on the internet."

Holy hell, that's not allowed!!!



That said, I disagree with you.

[sabrina 1]

33. It's a terrible article. To equate Hong Kong to China would sell only here in the US with Faux

viewers who probably don't know how to find either on the map.

Al Jazeera has deteriorated ever since it decided to try to get into the US. I don't know why they wanted that, we were able to access them throughout the Bush years.

He didn't end up in Russia by choice, but the article creates that false impression.

[backscatter712]

5. +1: the Two Minutes Hate continues.

They're desperately looking for new angles to smear from.

[frazzled]

9. Paranoia is often the sentiment behind Libertarian thought

I've been thinking of exactly what this article is discussing over the past week or so. I see many charges here about the state trying to induce "fear" in the wake of terrorism. Maybe so. But I see, equally, the inducement of fear in all the hand-wringing about the NSA. We are told they are reading our every email, listening to each phone conversation, following even every keystroke we make when sending a birthday greeting to Grandma. Our "liberties" are being assaulted.

When the nature of metadata surveillance is explained, or conditions such as the billions of emails traversing the Internet are cited, or when asked for actual examples of citizens who have been caught up in the snare of this, people demur and say, yes, well, but a future evil administration could use this very badly. Our "liberties" are being assaulted! Big Brother is watching us. Fear is induced in the populace.

This is the same paranoia I see in the cries of "Liberty" that accompany the gun craziness in this country. We need our guns because we could be assaulted at any moment, even in a church or restaurant or sports arena. Are people really that paranoid? I've lived without a gun either in my home or on my person for 63 years, and I have lived in some of the toughest urban centers in this country.

There is a real discussion to be had about the new technologies of surveillance and the limits that should be placed on the state. I support making changes to the law and finding sensible regulations (even as I support the government's need to conduct longstanding efforts at foreign intelligence). But this was not Edward Snowden's goal, in my estimation. (Certainly he did not have to release totally extraneous government-to-government intelligence information to have the discussion about the extent of metadata surveillance.) It has been a terror campaign aimed at frightening citizens into mistrust and fear of their government. It's been, frankly, pretty much just purely anti-government altogether (unless, of course, it is, bizarrely, the impeccable Russian or Ecuadorean or Venezuelan government). It's Libertarianism (with a dash of anarchism) gone amok.

This is a really interesting and valuable article, imo.

[UTUSN]

10. R#4 for the thread & wish Recs were allowed for individual posts, like this/#9. Paranoia is, indeed,

a key to all the SNOWDEN/GREENWALD hysteria and Libertarianism. BookTV had a panel the other day on (paraphrasing) "Security and the" modern world or State, and it was at something called The Independent Institute. My antennae popped out when one of the panelists said something that sounded Third Way, to the effect that we are not in a Left-Right fight, that all politicians on either side were THE SAME.

The same old "NO DIFFERENCE" crap. Sure enough, Wiki showed it to be a Libertarian think tank. Paranoia is one key.

But in another one of these threads I was surprised to see a long familiar DUer I've respected forever falling for the current jargon catch words, and her ultimate justification was that she is strong for THE CONSTITUTION. Yes, along with the TeaBaggers constantly jabbering about (their version of) THE FOUNDING FATHERS. I just saw a SNOWDENite thread with the latest epithet, "Post-Constitution."

[frazzled]

11. Yes, "Liberty," "Freedom," "the Constitution" ...

doesn't it all remind you of a Tea Party rally?

And yet those of us who raise a cautious eyebrow are branded as retardataire ... or just plain slaves of the giant anti-freedom capitalist conspiracy. Go figure.

Thanks for letting me know that at least one person doesn't think I'm a moron with her head in the sand.

[randome]

13. You should know you're not by now.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[sufrommich]

14. You are not alone in thinking that. nt

[Number23]

21. You know you're not alone. And in addition to your excellent points

I've also noticed that even the accusation of wrong doing launched at the government is enough for some people to scream that they're under assault.

The lady in NY was a prime example. Even though there was absolutely nothing factual in her accusations, to some the fact that there were some (already paranoid) people that took her accusations at face value meant that the government was somehow complicit. The fact that some were all too ready to believe the woman's lies was more than enough to indict the government. Paranoia to an entirely different level.

[Skraxx]

44. It's The Same Nonsense From A Different Angle, It's Complete Epistemic Closure, Instead of Fox, It's

Greenwald. Greenwald is the "source", the only source for the "true" information.

[MADem]

19. Et tu, UT?

In not the way you think!!!

I don't think I am the only one here who wishes they could recommend your post as an OP.

You summed up how so many of us feel about this whole business. Well written, well done!!! Pat yourself on the back!!!

[freshwest]

27. +1

[Skidmore]

15. Spot on.

[MADem]

18. I found your post much more reasoned than the OP. nt

[Number23]

20. I was just about to make a very similar point

The author talks about how paranoia is often used to actually bring people into power. How certain groups will play on the anxiety, ignorance and paranoia of a population to gain power.

And if that doesn't sound like the Libertarian Party right now (on both sides of the aisle) I honestly don't know what does.

[Cha]

29. Excellent post, thank you, frazzeled. nm

[sabrina 1]

34. So all we Democrats were 'Libertarians' during the Bush years???

[Bobbie Jo]

41. "We?"

You didn't show up here until 2008, so who knows?

[Skraxx]

45. "It has been a terror campaign aimed at frightening citizens..."

Yup.

[gollygee]

46. Very good post

There needs to be a discussion about surveillance, and I do think there should be much stricter limits on what is allowed, but Snowden is a libertarian with an agenda and I hate seeing people eat his agenda up so fully.

[CakeGrrl]

50. +1000

And it's underscored by the angry, hyperbolic insults leveled at those who don't buy into it.

The oft-posted Paul Revere graphic has the feel of parody.

And for holding that opinion, I'll be accused of Defending the Surveillance State - or being a Coulter doppelgänger, the latest crazy accusation for not lockstepping with the Defenders of the Constitution.

[Scurrilous]

12. Thanks.

Decent read.

[reorg]

22. idiotic blather

with not a single sentence worth reading. Oh, Aljazeera, what has become of you.

[gulliver]

23. Being paranoid makes you vulnerable and poor...

...and usually an asshole. You have to trust. There's no alternative.

Good article.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Interestingly …

Many of the responses to this OP seem to confirm the truth of the OP, as commenters attack it as “Propaganda” or cast Snowden as mentally ill.

Maybe some missed this segment:

Months into the scandal, it has become clear the Snowden beat tends toward the tautological. If a writer believes - or finds it advantageous to proclaim - that NSA employees respect the citizen's right to privacy and the legal codes that protect him or her, then Snowden's claims are unfounded exaggerations. If a writer believes - or finds it advantageous to proclaim - that NSA employees are prone to abuse the system they have created, and that the government will lie to protect its creation, then Snowden's claims are evidence of systemic abuse.”

Great Piece.

[davidpdx]

25. The problem is that it isn't RT News

The unofficial "rah rah" network of DU

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. It amazes me ...

that folks are sooo able to see the splinter in the eye of others; while completely unable to see the log in their eye. Sad for society, in general, and worse for DU, in particular.

[sabrina 1]

35. It amazes me too. What's more amazing is those who were so 'paranoid', yes I remember

Bush loyalists calling all Democrats 'paranoid' when they were outraged when Bush was caught doing this, are now unparanoiding themselves for some reason.

Were you, like me and most Democrats 'paranoid' when Bush was caught implementing these policies, or did you support him then?

Did we misunderstand Bush? Do I owe an apology to all of his supporters who called me 'paranoid' for speaking out against his spying on Americans policies using the telecoms to do so?

Enquiring minds want to know when they are being paranoid and when they should just relax and enjoy being spied on.

[davidpdx]

37. What is funny is you missed the whole point of his post

Maybe you should stop attacking people like a rabid dog and actually read what he wrote about the decisiveness which I agree totally agree with. If your whole point is to piss people off then you are doing a stellar job.

[SidDithers]

39. +1...nt

Sid

[CakeGrrl]

51. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. To answer your question ...

Yes ... I was outraged.

To provide an answer relative to this OP, Yes, my outrage was probrably stoked by my paranioa and distrust.

Enquiring minds want to know when they are being paranoid and when they should just relax and enjoy being spied on.

What a perfect example of the OP's premise on display ... I doubt you could have provided a better example if you had tried.

[ucrdem]

36. That IS interesting, isn't it? But it points to Snowden's lack of credibility.

If he or Greenwald were at all trustworthy, i.e. if either had a record of telling the truth, Snowden would be less of a Rorschach. But as it is, they're both highly dubious characters who wear their duplicity on their sleeves. On top of that their stories never checked out, and on top of that, they've both demagoged bigtime since day 1. Greenwald makes a career of it.

So the only conclusion I've been able to draw is that the people going all in for the Libertarian fear-for-all are the same ones grasping every other false hope that Obama is the great Satan. That's certainly supported by what I've seen here, and that's been a little disappointing frankly.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

28. Is this article trying to claim that it's all in our heads?

That the evidence presented by Snowden, and the many other whistleblowers is just a fabrication, until we have an authority tell us otherwise?

And that the only reason this story has gone on for as long as it has is because even though our authorities have told us we have nothing to fear, and that what they have revealed is not true, but our paranoid delusions, due to a lack of trust in todays authorities, allow the story to stay alive?

Creepy

[liberal_at_heart]

30. I guess the authority has to admit they are doing something wrong. If that is the case, we will

have a long wait.

[Cha]

31. Thanks sufrommich.. bookmarking.

[SidDithers]

40. DU rec...nt

Sid

[KharmaTrain]

42. He Ran The Wrong Way...

...the tragedy of the Snowden saga is that the further he hides from this country the less good he'll do for the causes he claims he cares so much about. You sure can't do it from 6,000 miles away in some dacha in Russia or Ecquador or anywhere else but the halls of the U.S. Congress and in the courtrooms. He had the golden opportunity to be a hero had he chosen to expose all he claims he knows to someone in a position to push for investigations. I regret he didn't contact a Senator Merkley or Sanders...or a member of Congress who would have given him the true whistleblower protections and really put this matter on a faster track to accountability. At this point we still have lots of speculation and few real facts and answers...and that's what all parties involved here should push for. While the cause Snowden had heightened awareness, once again, on the growing breach of privacy...publically and commercially...but without his testimony and evidence, we see lots of conjecture that only makes it harder to separate what is true from tin foil paranoia...

[Egnever]

47. Well said

[Waiting For Everyman]

48. "Satisfactory explanations require trust in the person explaining." No they don't.

Trust is the last thing involved in a satisfactory explanation. Facts are what matter, not the person relaying them.

And trust is never appropriate toward a government. Oversight is what matters.

I think she is confusing her criteria for a date or SO, with the matter at hand.