General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhether some DUers like him or not
Edward Snowden blew the whistle on some seriously illegal practices by the NSA and the government of the USA.
This is what we want to protect any notion of democracy. I will forever be grateful to whistle blowers anywhere and everywhere.
What I have learned here on DU is that partisans in the US are no different from partisans in other so called liberal democracies - my side must not be criticized; my side is always right; the same atrocities or attacks on our civil and political rights are condemned when practiced by the other party, but defended when 'our side' is in power.
Thank you Edward Snowden - I don't know how this will end for you, but as a citizen of the planet who genuinely believes in our rights and freedoms, I will remain eternally grateful to you and Glen Greenwald. In time people will understand that you both did us all a favor.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)anti partisan
(429 posts)And I'd still be grateful for his blowing of the whistle. This is stuff that needed to be exposed, and the USA will be a better place for it. You are right, in time people will understand what a favor they both did us.
K&R
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Edward Snowden blew the whistle on some seriously illegal practices by the NSA and the government of the USA. "
...disagree. Even in his interview, Snowden could not produce any examples of anything "illegal." His own lawyers recognize that he has no standing in that regard.
Snowden supporters and advisers say Clinton's remarks were unrealistic and reflect several factual misunderstandings about his predicament. They say he could not have availed himself of whistleblower protections because he was not a government employee (he worked for contractor Booz Allen) and his claims would not have been viewed as exposing any impropriety because authorities in all three branches of government had blessed the NSA telephone program as legal. A federal judge not privy to the program before the leaks later ruled it unconstitutional, but that decision is on appeal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024871696
During the interview, Snowden sounded like an idiot and most of his claims were absurd. In fact, he dug himself into a deeper hole with that interview. I mean, the fool admitted, in his own words, that he took damaging information and distributed it and the only thing he has as a defense is that the recipients promised not to reveal the information.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025017514
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)was NOT torture just because John Yoo said it wasn't? That was apparently legal too.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Response to ProSense (Reply #8)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN This message was self-deleted by its author.
malaise
(269,054 posts)Remember when slavery was legal too
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)nm
Response to ProSense (Reply #5)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)fun of watching Snowden fans yell: Leave Snowden, hero, alone.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i want you to have the jury cause i want to say.... i am really really tired of certain posters thinking that there are a few duers with a target on their back, and that is ok for target shooting.
On Thu May 29, 2014, 07:54 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hopefully you're getting time and a half today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5017735
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This "paid poster" attack is getting ridiculous, and should qualify as disruptive, insulting, and inappropriate. Rewarding personal attacks just encourages this behavior.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu May 29, 2014, 08:11 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sick of this crap.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: 2008 called, it wants its joke back.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is calling someone a troll and is unacceptable personal attack. Take it over to the Discussionist, we're trying for civility here.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This comment serves no purpose other than to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. ProSense annoys me too but I am tired of the general lack of civility on DU.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There are posters that think insult is ok for a few. Wrong.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Almost all of them agreed with each other!
I have to admit, I miss talking to you gals daily about these issues.
But, I haven't been as active as I would have been normally lately.
Frankly, I'm really disgusted with the way this site is being managed.
Considering the fact that I voted for President Obama twice, it is hard to drag my mouse's pointer over a harsh thread about him just to read the same lame comments that have been made here for the last 5 or 6 years about him.
If I don't say hello to you before the 4th of July, just know that I think that you're the greatest!
You, she, Cha, Prosense, Tex4Obama, Whisp, freshwest, all of the gals from the BOG, and so many other wonderful ladies that have posted here these last few years.
You've all really been an inspiration to me.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)on the internet I would include a lot of links to my own words and reclaim what I had already written a second, third, and even a fourth time. Quick money, not that I could name anyone that does that.
malaise
(269,054 posts)one of their employees blows the whistle (as it were), it is one hell of a spurious argument to suggest that there are no whistle blower protections when it is government illegality that is being exposed. What a great way to circumvent the law.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)spooky3
(34,458 posts)In the story you quote, the *NSA* said they were legal, and that may have rendered the statutory protections for whistleblowers unavailable to Snowden. The WB protections in the US have been criticized by experts such as Devine, Dworkin, Moberly, and others as weak, too limited, and full of holes, for a long time.
The NSA is hardly the best arbiter of whether they or their agents and contractors engaged in wrongdoing.
There are stories all over the web describing independent findings of wrongdoing, concerns about questionable, immoral practices, etc. here is just one:
http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story.html
ProSense
(116,464 posts)spooky3
(34,458 posts)I thought I had politely explained the logical errors you made in your jumps from one claim to another.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)--Martin Luther King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail
Tell me, what's so good about NSA spying on American citizens en masse? Tell me, what's so good about secret laws, secret courts or secret interpretations of the law? Tell me, what's so good about living in a police? While you're telling me, please spare the legalese. Anything can be made legal by repealing the law against it. Just ask the banksters how they get away with fraud.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Seriously? Even if we accept for a moment, the worst conspiracy theories about what the NSA is doing, reading emails, listening to phone calls etc., that compares to beatings and lynchings and segregation for you?
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I am comparing police state tactics, such as mass surveillance of citizens, to police state tactics used by police states of the past to subjugate citizens and even in support of worse things than our government is presently doing, such as genocide. The systematic extermination of 11 million non-combatants, including six million Jews simply because they were Jews, was not possible without police state. That is what Dr. King was referring in that passage. Otherwise, the only comparison he was making to the Holocaust and the beatings and lynchings and segregation of the Jim Crow South is that the laws that gave form and authority to such oppression were unjust.
There is movement afoot in America to promote income inequality as a positive good, or at least a necessary consequence of an unbridled free market, which is viewed by many as a positive good. I simply observe that inequality at that level cannot be maintained without a police state protecting the elites from the oppressed masses. This kind of mass surveillance is the kind of power the state should never have. Indeed, I maintain that our state doesn't have that power under the Constitution; it is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.
Would the government use police state tactics such as mass surveillance against those who might rise against the injustice of income inequality? Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I think it would. Perhaps it already has.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Don't give in to sophistry!
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Do you wish that the extent of the NSA spy program was never uncovered?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)He was the real hero. The REAL whistleblower.
Snowden revealed everything Drake did, except Snowden's revelations had the warrant. The warrant that everyone was pissed was NOT being pursued is now there.
Aside from that, Snowden released sensitive state secrets, and military documents. That, my friends, is NOT a whistleblower. That is a shit weasel.
Thomas Drake is a hero and a patriot. Drake was prosecuted under Bush, but the Obama DOJ dropped the charges. Why? Because this administration supports whistleblowers. Not media-leaking shit weasels.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)going on here... a runaway spying program targeting innocent people. Drake obviously didn't have the impact Snowden did because it didn't change anything or bring it to the forefront of our collective attention. That's the kind of whistle blowing that a government can live with; no skin off their teeth to forgive that. But the person isn't the issue, the issue is the unwarranted, over-reaching, unconstitutional spying program at the NSA. Letting this devolve into a personality circus works just fine to get their program back on track without anyone noticing is just what they need.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)or military secrets. He also didn't flee to Russia and sign exclusivity deals with journalists.
Nor did he try to appear on TV as much as he could. Snowden is the one who makes this about Snowden.
Drake is a real hero. Snowden is a piece of shit.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)Sadly, celebrity is so much more important to our culture than the issues that really make a difference to our lives.
LuvNewcastle
(16,846 posts)And I think Snowden's critics are "on the wrong side of history."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Things have changed. We are in the midst of an elaborate ruse, a masquerade.
malaise
(269,054 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And all you need is some good actors...well they don't really have to be that good...and many will believe.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)So many things done by both the government and the private sector are shockingly immoral and unethical, yet still 'legal', that I don't really care if something horrible somebody is doing is technically 'legal'. Yes, we should be working to make such things 'illegal', but we need to start voting to people out of office who are perfectly happy to continue to do anything and everything as long as they can torture an interpretation out of some 'memo' from a sleazy lawyer to protect the 'legality' of whatever horrific thing they want to do.
Leme
(1,092 posts)So many things done by both the government and the private sector are shockingly immoral and unethical, yet still 'legal'
-
'memo' from a sleazy lawyer to protect the 'legality' of whatever horrific thing they want to do.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)just because something is declared 'legal' does not mean it's ethical or moral
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)of 'justice' and 'the rule of law' goes back to Roman times, when everything simply rested on how good an orator your advocate was. We've gotten a little better on things like evidence, but far too often the least ethical lawyers win by using sleazy tactics like smearing the victim or repeatedly saying things they know the juries will remember, even if they're ordered to ignore them by the judge.
People who have lied in the past, committed crimes in the past, can still be victimized like the rest of us, but the mere fact that they have a 'past' is used to write off crimes committed against them - that 14 year old whose case against her rapist was in the news recently, for instance, in which the judge gave the rapist a 'pass' because the girl had had sex before.
People in 'white collars' destroy far more lives than any mass murderer with a gun, yet the suffering they inflict on millions is ignored when it comes time to penalize them even in the rare occasions when they are taken to trial.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)The lawyers and the judges, since they collectively operate (and game) the system. It's all but impenetrable to non-lawyers, and the lawyers and judges want it that way, and they deliberately keep it that way.
It starts with the legislators who are lawyers (most of them), writing the laws, rules and regulations. Then the lawyers who further abuse the system by lobbying for businesses to get sweetheart laws and tax breaks at the expense of the rest of the populace. To the judges who do not seek to get unethical lawyers disbarred, because after all judges are lawyers first, and its just a "black wall of silence" similar to the "blue wall of silence" which protects unethical police.
treestar
(82,383 posts)then it will be legal. Weird to see how people are trying to make "illegal" have to do with their desires rather than the law. If you think it's bad even though it' legal, why not say so rather than trying to misuse a word?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Greed is immoral. But until your greed causes harm to others, there is no need to legislate against it. When your greed crashes the entire economy and plunges millions into unemployment and raises the poverty rate, then YES we should 'legislate' against it. Not the greed, but the results thereof.
The law should serve all of society, not simply specific groups of privilege, whether by wealth, race, or gender.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)Overseas
(12,121 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I count one so far: ex's listening in on their ex's. Have their been others?
randome
(34,845 posts)Damned Nazis!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Such meticulous attention to legality obviously breaks the fourth amendment and there we go. Thanks, Eddie!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)which has relevance on whether the NSA practices were 'legal' after all:
Here's what happened: just before Edward Snowden became a household name, the ACLU argued before the supreme court that the Fisa Amendments Act one of the two main laws used by the NSA to conduct mass surveillance was unconstitutional.
In a sharply divided opinion, the supreme court ruled, 5-4, that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs didn't have "standing" in other words, that the ACLU couldn't prove with near-certainty that their clients, which included journalists and human rights advocates, were targets of surveillance, so they couldn't challenge the law. As the New York Times noted this week, the court relied on two claims by the Justice Department to support their ruling: 1) that the NSA would only get the content of Americans' communications without a warrant when they are targeting a foreigner abroad for surveillance, and 2) that the Justice Department would notify criminal defendants who have been spied on under the Fisa Amendments Act, so there exists some way to challenge the law in court.
It turns out that neither of those statements were true but it took Snowden's historic whistleblowing to prove it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/government-lies-nsa-justice-department-supreme-court
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Specifically, what makes "neither of those statements true" and what evidence did Snowden supply to prove them false?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)I thought the final paragraph including 'Snowden' might have given a clue.
There was also, of course, lying to Congress: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/19/5228672/lawmakers-slam-intelligence-chief-james-clapper-for-lying-to-congress
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Are we in blue linky land or are you just yanking my chain here?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)I quoted the 1st 4 paragraphs of the article. The 4th reads: "It turns out that neither of those statements were true but it took Snowden's historic whistleblowing to prove it. " . Subsequent paragraphs go on to expand on Snowden's disclosures, which have exposed the government lies (whether or not the Solicitor General knew he was passing on lies to the SC).
So, now you know. The government lied to the Supreme Court to cover up the NSA program; the SC, having been lied to, said they weren't breaking the law, and, now we have evidence that they lied, 2 Democratic senators want the government to acknowledge the lies. And, of course, Clapper lied to Congress. This is pretty important - the executive misleading the other 2 branches to cover up an illegal program.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)In any case Snowball admitted in his NBC interview that the NSA is operating legally so there goes that fond wish. I heard him say it last night.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)Obviously you didn't want an answer to your question, since all you've done with my answer is ignore the article, rather than considering what it says. It'd be better if you said something like "don't bother answering, I won't pay any attention" in future, rather than wasting our time.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Leme
(1,092 posts)I am that way at times.
-
but sometimes trolls are trolls
-
your decision
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sometimes posters make things up and try to pretend they didn't.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)You want to use the Supreme Court - with the most conservative justices since the 1940's - as the arbiter on this?
No thanks.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)"Lying to the Supreme Court."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5018336
The general idea is that something Snowden said would have caused the SC to decide a case differently so it would have to be be a lot more watertight than anything he's said so far.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)"As the New York Times first reported, the NSA 'is searching the contents of vast amounts of Americans' e-mail and text communications into and out of the country, hunting for people who mention information about foreigners under surveillance.' In other words, the NSA doesn't just target a contact overseas it sweeps up everyone's international communications into a dragnet and searches them for keywords."
By this logic a "foreigner under surveillance" is not a "contact overseas".
And you actually agree?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)What it's saying is that it's not a question of noting who a foreigner under surveillance is in communication with; here's more of the NYT article:
contact with foreigners targeted overseas, a practice that government officials have openly
acknowledged. It is also casting a far wider net for people who cite information linked to
those foreigners, like a little used e-mail address, according to a senior intelligence official.
While it has long been known that the agency conducts extensive computer searches of data
it vacuums up overseas, that it is systematically searching without warrants through
the contents of Americans communications that cross the border reveals more about the
scale of its secret operations.
...
Hints of the surveillance appeared in a set of rules, leaked by Mr. Snowden, for how the
N.S.A. may carry out the 2008 FISA law. One paragraph mentions that the agency seeks to
acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target. The pages were
posted online by the newspaper The Guardian on June 20, but the telltale paragraph, the
only rule marked Top Secret amid 18 pages of restrictions, went largely overlooked amid
other disclosures.
https://www.eff.org/files/2014/01/10/jewelpltfsresponserumolddeclex4.pdf
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)in the American courts of law.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)There are many supporters of Edward Snowden here for his heroism in what he revealed about our Government data-mining spying on it's own US Citizens. I don't know if you've watched PBS FRONTLINE's Excellent Documentary (3 hours) on the Whistleblowers before Snowden and how they tried to out Bush's illegal spying after "9/11" and the continuation and expansion by President Obama or the interview with Snowden on NBC last night. It's been posted many times here at DU and if you didn't watch it I hope you will find the time at some point to do so. didn't.
This name calling would be better suited to a Conservative Website where name calling and distracting from message is the chosen way of communicating.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)That kind of name-calling is vomit-inducing, and not at all progressive.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)there was actually a lot of support for the right to call those types of names.
The standard had been set.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do whistle-blowers upset your denial bubble? It's not very liberal to give up your rights to privacy for a weak promise of security. But some choose to stand behind the biggest bully and shout insults.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Do whistle-blowers upset your denial bubble? No
It's not very liberal to give up your rights to privacy for a weak promise of security. Now you're just making up shit, I'm pretty sure I've never said one word of support fo NSA's actions especially when it comes to my rights to privacy. I'm even more sure I've never said anything about giving up my rights to privacy for the sake of security
But some choose to stand behind the biggest bully and shout insults. Heaa haa haa, yet you don't respond to the actual insult hurled at Obama, "piece of shite,m used car salesman"
your come back is pretty pathetic. Perhaps you should quit trying to read the minds of others, you're not very good at it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)As far as Will's post, I never approved of it, but moved on. Obsessing about it is not very liberal. You are liberal arent you?
If whistle-blowers dont upset denial bubbles, why does a specific group here in DU hate them so? Seriously? It's one thing to hold the opinion that Snowden broke the law. But to obsess over it and call him childish names is very odd. It's as if some dont want to deal with what's really happening so they seek diversions.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)because you been throwing out the "rules" a lot lately.
You continue to pass negative, and erroneous, and assumptive judgements on others...is that being liberal? Is that in your handbook?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)conservative agenda. I dont like it when those that pretend to be liberal and disparage the left and post hatred of whistle-blowers and protestors. I dont like the conservative agenda and will speak out as such.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)i would hate to see you fall into self loathing because your judgmental attitude and assumptions are just like I'd expect an Conservative to be like.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)liberals. They arent here to discuss issues like fracking, Wall Street corruption, net neutrality, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, etc. I should avoid the "Whistle-Blower and OWS hate threads."
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)We shouldn't allow the lowest common denominator to dictate our standards.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)sometimes giving others carte blanche, permitting rhetoric without consequences feels very impotent.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)I have not advocated, "flinging poo," as you put it. Quite the opposite.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)to end up in Russia. Only an idiot would suggest Snowden voluntarily went to Russia. Of course there are many idiots here and else where.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)cry me a tear about your hero being called Moscow Eddie. His name is Eddie and he's in Moscow because he "heroically" fled there.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's not at all "Progressive" to give up your right to privacy for a mere promise of security. Your blinded trust of the NSA/CIA/FBI is misplaced and sadly naive. But it is the easy road. Stand behind the big bully (NSA) and shout absurdities at "Eddie" or any whistle-blower that may stand up to the bully.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)Kind of like the children in the back seat that keep complaining "Daddy, Susan's looking at me, make her stop."
Evidence collected illegally cannot be used in a court. That is all that the Constitution guarantees. If you have been harmed by the illegally obtained information, then you can sue.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are contending that all information they obtain is by definition "legal". Another concern is that information can be used to ruin people without exposing where the information came from, making it impossible to get rectification via courts.
Progressives are concerned with violations of our right to privacy and I find it very strange that someone calling themselves a Progressive, would side with the NSA/CIA Security State against the rights of citizens.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)courts continue to throw them out for not having been harmed. Which people are you contending have been ruined by the NSA using illegally obtained information?
Response to Progressive dog (Reply #100)
cui bono This message was self-deleted by its author.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)But I'm sure you find that perfectly fine, right?
Name calling, misrepresentation, and outright lying about Democrats is as much a part of the anti-Democratic left as it is the Republican right. It's hardly unique to right wing sites. You see it every day on the DU.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
roomtomove
(217 posts)the American kangaroo courts of law.
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)with real justice, like Eddie did. LOL
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)like him to come back and face trial.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)He did. He also exposed perfectly
legitimate foreign intelligence operations, and has expressed a willingness to continue to do so. The one does not excuse the other, though it does mitigate it. I'm with Bernie Sanders on this one.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Edward Snowden did not blow the whistle on any illegal activity.
When asked to give an example of the NSA violating the law, both he and Greenwald were unable to do so.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)
Mail Message
On Thu May 29, 2014, 07:54 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hopefully you're getting time and a half today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5017735
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This "paid poster" attack is getting ridiculous, and should qualify as disruptive, insulting, and inappropriate. Rewarding personal attacks just encourages this behavior.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu May 29, 2014, 08:11 AM, and voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sick of this crap.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: 2008 called, it wants its joke back.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is calling someone a troll and is unacceptable personal attack. Take it over to the Discussionist, we're trying for civility here.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This comment serves no purpose other than to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. ProSense annoys me too but I am tired of the general lack of civility on DU.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There are posters that think insult is ok for a few. Wrong.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION
You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 9:11 AM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=283336&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.
IMPORTANT: Hidden posts remain on your Transparency Page for 90 days. If at any time your Transparency Page contains five or more hidden posts there are additional consequences: 1) your Transparency Page will be displayed and can be read by any logged-in member, 2) you will be unable to post until there are fewer than five hidden posts remaining on your Transparency Page, 3) if you are a forum or group Host and/or serving on the Malicious Intruder Removal Team (MIRT), you will lose those privileges.
malaise
(269,054 posts)legal.
Legal doesn't mean American law.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The only thing at issue in Snowden's revelations are any NSA spying on American citizens.
Spying on other nations is the job of the NSA, and I am grateful we have organizations doing this.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Will you be able to find a treaty under which it is illegal?
Throwing around the term "illegal" without regards to the law is meaningless.
roomtomove
(217 posts)just as torture was made legal by a dubious legal (political) opinion, and as protests were made illegal in some states. The worst part of all this is that so many sheeple are unaware of this creeping totalitarianism.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Which goes back to what most who understand that Snowden is a traitor and a coward have said all along, we need to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, or at the very minimum severely curtail the powers granted by that abomination.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Paladin
(28,264 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)and thank you.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)But I am happy that he brought information to light that we as a country would not be discussing otherwise.
malaise
(269,054 posts)and that is all that matters to me
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)when the Patriot Act was passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. Where have you been?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Yes we've been complaining about spying since then but I don't think we were aware it was continuing to the extent it was under the current government. And I am a strong supporter of Obama, but I appreciate all politicians - including those I support - having public pressure leading toward transparency.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So I'm not sold on the big revelations defense. As far as I can tell it's pure theater in the interest of smearing Democrats, produced by the same crew that brought us Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That happens.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If you want me to feed the canine a bit more, the message would be that one can think whatever of Snowden and Greenwald, and one can certainly think that people who support what they did are wrongheaded to one degree or another.
However it is totally wrong to compare a guy who basally has forced himself into exile to reveal what he thinks is a gross overreach by the National Security State and a bunch of right wing nut-jobs who made up a bunch of lies and smears about a democratic Presidential candidate, egged on by Karl Rove's tactic of taking an opposing candidate's strength (Kerry's war record) and twisting it against them.
The revelations may be peripherally embarrassing to President Obama, but the overall issue is much bigger than he or any individual president, and goes to the heart of our system and the collective sacrifice of our privacy and freedom that has kicked into high gear since 9-11.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He's somebody's puppet, I don't know exactly whose, but whoever they are their agenda mirrors the GOP's, specifically the neocons.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I don't think believing that privacy and civil liberties are important is limited (or even reflects) the GOP agenda.
And, if you want to get technical about it, massive and intrusive spying under the guide of National Security is part of the neo-con agenda. So I'm not sure how undermining that is furthering their goals.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It isn't about the NSA either. That's been clear all along, but became even clearer during the NBC interview. Benghazi isn't about what happened at Benghazi on 9/11/12, either. The NSA is worthless to the neocons as long as Dems control it, and they'd prefer to weaken it as much as possible so as not to help Obama. Once they get Dems out of office, they can do whatever they want with it again, like they did during Bush-Cheney, so swiftboating Obama is job one.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Others have just enough to follow.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)strange that this issue is so boring to you that it made you fall asleep twice this morning, but so interesting that you shared the news in two posts as you were dozing off
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Because you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a thread about Edward Snowden. Funny how over the past few months, we see nothing on him, suddenly he pops up with Brian Williams and he the toast of the town.....
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Are necessary. Agee 100%.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)to investigate and report on our government. They used to do a fairly good job (think of Watergate) and the number of news outlets were fairly limited.
Today the major outlets in terms of television and print media are consolidated under corporate ownership. They don't want to spend any money on actual journalism.
The internet offers so many other options but the news becomes diluted across all the various sources.
Because journalism is no longer playing its role we have to rely on whistleblowers and others to disclose our government's actions.
The only way we can avoid becoming another Soviet Union or North Korea is to expose the illegal or questionable actions of the government.
To that end Greenwald/Snowden have played an important role in exposing the massive spying on the American people. Whether the spying was legal under current law or not it is something our Congresscritters and Presidents have enacted. We need to know what they are doing whether it is legal or not.
sinkingfeeling
(51,460 posts)Cyrano
(15,041 posts)Perhaps, someday in the future, Snowden will be viewed as a hero for exposing the rot within our current system.
mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)as long as he's outside this country he's a traitor. China to Russia and possibly Cuba smh
Chelsea Manning is here... and going on with her life. get over here Ed..
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)And I think a lot more people understand that today.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's the part I don't get. Why didn't this reaction happen with Drake in 2005?
840high
(17,196 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)They had a warrant. It was legal.
So far no one has been affected by it in any way by which they would have an appeal issue in the courts, but if it happened, they could. It would have to involve an arrest for something to get it into court.
Logical
(22,457 posts)malaise
(269,054 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)santamargarita
(3,170 posts)whistleblowers. It's nice when someone pulls the curtain back on illegal activity!
Avalux
(35,015 posts)And I certainly don't know the WHY behind his actions; whether selfish or concern for all of us. The only fact I know is that he exposed the NSA's illegal practices and I agree that's a good thing.
Here's where I have a problem though. There are people who think he's some sort of hero and describe him with very lofty words, those who think he should be exonerated. It's not that simple and Snowden knew full well what the consequences of his actions would be. To me, a hero would not be hiding out in a foreign country (a not so friendly one) PORTRAYING himself as a hero. He would be telling his story here, and facing those consequences.
That's just my opinion. There will be a place in history for Snowden and Greenwald most definitely; but right now the story is far from over.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)If they so seriously illegal.... why have no warrants been issued for all this illegal activity after being exposed ,,,, been over a year and the only warrants issued have been against Comrade Snowden, seems he is the only illegal thingy. But I guess if yall say it enough it will come true..
Hail to Papa Paul,,,, his best coup to date!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LuckyTheDog
(6,837 posts)The basic facts about the NSA program had been reported years earlier.
And, whether you like it or not, the NSA was not engaged in "seriously illegal practices," at least not as defined by statutes and the courts.
smallcat88
(426 posts)whistleblowers are called traitors in the short term. Years, or decades later, they are hailed as heroes. Shortsighted is a leading cause of so many of society's problems. Think long term.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"[T]he sonofabitching thief is made a national hero and is going to get off on a mistrial, and the New York Times gets a Pulitzer Prize for stealing documents...What is the name of God have we come to?" --President Richard Nixon (Oval Office discussion, May 11, 1973)"
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ellsberg/ellsbergaccount.html
joanbarnes
(1,722 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)Poll: Most think Edward Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
Most Americans 61 percent - think Snowden should have to stand trial in the United States for his actions. Far fewer 23 percent - think he should be granted amnesty. Republicans, Democrats, and independents all agree on this as well.
Meanwhile, 31 percent approve of Snowdens actions, while most, 54 percent, disapprove. Majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents disapprove.
Americans are divided as to the impact on the country from making the NSA program public. While 40 percent think the disclosure has been good for the country, 46 percent think it has been bad.
When asked to come up with a word that describes Edward Snowden, nearly a quarter volunteer either traitor or a similar word that questions his loyalty to his country, while 8 percent say he is brave or courageous or a hero. Just 2 percent volunteered that he is a patriot or patriotic, and another 2 percent say terrorist.
malaise
(269,054 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)rep the dems
(1,689 posts)The right wing just ignored the polls and made up their own numbers/tried to discredit them. The 2012 results were pretty much in line with what the polls said especially if you look at Nate Silver's analysis of them.
malaise
(269,054 posts)especially if you look at Nate Silver's analysis of them.
Not one of the polls referred to upthread is from Nate Silver.
rep the dems
(1,689 posts)He just does polling and statistical analysis. What I'm saying is that using aggregate polling data, he very accurately predicted the 2012 election- he wouldn't have gotten those results if, as you claim, they were all saying that Romney was going to win. The polling favored Obama, Obama won. There's no basis for your implication that Snowden is much more popular than the polls say.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)Like watching paint dry. The only change from when he first fled to China/Russia last year, is that his numbers have continued to decline.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I am very grateful for what happened.
tea and oranges
(396 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)All that matters is the crime the guy committed. We could not sustain an intelligence community if every knuckle head with a security clearance thought he or she has the right to steal and publish any classified document they want, whenever they want. What in the heck does this have to do with "liking" Snowden ?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)...for their expose' on Government Over Reach.
malaise
(269,054 posts)montanacowboy
(6,093 posts)this is a very courageous young man, intelligent and articulate and eventually he will become another Daniel Ellsberg
WillyT
(72,631 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)You would not be able to find a single OP saying Snowden was a coward etc.
The fight against Snowden isn't about him or his actions. It's about protecting false beliefs in who and what Obama and his administration represent.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, malaise.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Bravo malaise. Way to point out the big picture.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)pacalo
(24,721 posts)slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)that there are still so many vocal spying apologists. This place has truly gone to shit.
No concern for the constitution... Swiftboating whistleblowers... Teabagger mentality and tactics... Yuck.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)Frontline 2 part series called "United States of Secrets" and then the Williams interview with Snowden, well, I was really thinking he was an attention seeking traitor. Now, after finding out what they have done to past whistleblowers and the intrusiveness of their programs I too feel a debt of gratitude to him and an understanding of why he could not remain in the US.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Eternally grateful?
That's a long time, dude.
Wait for him to come back and get a quiz show on tv first.
Most people don't even know what the hell Snowden did in order to understand whether he did you or a favor or not, yet.
As for me, he didn't do me any favors.
Seriously, I already knew that the federal government could listen to my phone conversations.
I already knew the federal government could read my e-mails.
The Patriot Act gave the federal government card blanche to do that sort of thing.
So, there was nothing that Snowden did that taught me anything new.
Except to learn that he supported Ron Paul for President.
Which means one nut job loved another nut job.
Big surprise, huh?
Strat54
(58 posts)...but in the end, he is still a Right-Wing operative who was all gung-ho about the wars while Cheney was president, but now that a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, sudden;y he has a "Crisis of Conscience" about the work he was doing.
It is foolish to hold Ron Paul devotee Snowden as some kind of hero. I'm sure that if he wasn't holed up in Russia, he would be expounding on the virtues of Cliven Bundy.
Isn't it obvious yet?? This is ALL about himself.
"Hey!! Look!!! I'm a spy!!! Did I tell you I'm a spy?? No! Really!! I'm a genuine secret agent!! Well... maybe not so secret, because then I wouldn't be able to talk about me."
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I really wish I could.