Suck it up, Snowden-haters: New Yorker on "Why Citizenfour Deserved Its Oscar"

[99th_Monkey]

Why “Citizenfour” Deserved Its Oscar
BY AMY DAVIDSON * FEBRUARY 22, 2015 * The New Yorker

“Thank you to Edward Snowden for his courage,” Laura Poitras, the director of “Citizenfour,” said as she accepted the Oscar for best documentary. Neil Patrick Harris, the award show’s host, noted that Snowden couldn’t be there “for some treason.” Treason isn’t one of the crimes Snowden has been charged with—the government wants to prosecute him under the Espionage Act—but both the praise and the joke point to why this Snowden Oscar mattered. What he did was useful, and dangerous.

That wouldn’t have been enough if the movie were bad. But “Citizenfour” is worth watching, as well as celebrating. One still has to ask where the cinematic romance is. At the Oscars, an answer was provided by the young woman onstage with Poitras: Lindsay Mills, the woman whom Snowden at first left behind when he left his job and everything else for a hotel room in Hong Kong. One of the minor revelations of “Citizenfour” was that Mills had joined him in Moscow.

“Just walk me through it,” Glenn Greenwald tells Edward Snowden, in that Hong Kong hotel room. The guidance Greenwald and his colleagues look for is of three distinct kinds: How do you keep secrets? Why would Snowden tell secrets? And what has the government been hiding?

The first is the most one-sided. Greenwald, as the narration delicately makes clear, initially can’t figure out or can’t be bothered to set up the encrypted line of communication needed to satisfy the mysterious source who e-mails him—this is why Snowden turns to Laura Poitras, who knows exactly what he’s talking about when he asks, in their first exchanges, about her public keys. (George Packer wrote a Profile of Poitras for The New Yorker.) Snowden shows Greenwald how to do it (“It seems hard, but it’s not—this is super-easy”), and why he should. Here is one of the practical, paradoxical gifts of the Snowden affair: don’t give up on the idea that your words can be secret, at least slightly more secret than is convenient for companies or spies. If you are a little disciplined, you can be freer. There is a lovely shot of Greenwald’s face when Snowden, who is about to enter a password, asks for his “magic mantle of power,” a red sweatshirt, and pulls it over his head, as if he were a man running in the rain, or a teen-ager with a flashlight under his blankets. Looking at him, Greenwald, whom we’ve already encountered as a big talker, is, for a moment, only quiet and curious, with barely a flicker in his expression before he asks, “Is that about the possibility of—overhead?” Greenwald adds that nothing will surprise him anymore. His tone in that instant is one that the film, for all the scenes with angry activists, ultimately shares, and why the film works—neither titillated nor portentous, and just abashed enough to keep its importance from becoming self-importance.

More: http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/is-citizenfour-worth-celebrating

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. So because the documentary won an Oscar....that vindicates Snowden?

please explain how THAT works in your world....

If Sniper had of won.....would that have made Chris Kyle your hero too?

[99th_Monkey]

5. Excuse me for celebrating the truth being told so boldly

I haven't even seen the film yet (but plan to ASAP) .. but from this review/article I can tell it's likely to be full of here-to-for hidden factoids about how we're being spied upon in violation of Constitution and Bill of Rts.

I'm happy this film is getting even broader exposure due to the Oscar.

[treestar]

103. Answer the question about Anerican Sniper

There's nothing to "suck up," as an Oscar means the movie was made well. That could be so regardless of subject. Lol it is possible to make a good movie about anything.

[99th_Monkey]

192. Fine.

Then don't suck it up, for all I care.

As for American Sniper, haven't seen it either, and don't plan to ...

Whether the Oscar is a "vindication" of Snowden or not, remains an open question in my mind, but
like I already said, it certainly helps raise awareness about what Snowden actually did/did not do,
and why he did it. <-- this is a great development IMHO, tho I know you disagree.

[VanillaRhapsody]

275. You said that and you haven't even seen the movie?

[99th_Monkey]

285. Which movie?

American Sniper or Citizen4?

I have already said I hadn't watched either one yet; but do
plan on seeing the latter ASAP.

So what?

... faux outrage grasping at straws?

[VanillaRhapsody]

319. That is what I am talking about....

either of them!

and this is a double

[billhicks76]

329. Don't Engage The NSA Lovers

Anyone who defends the spying used to gain leverage,often on important Americans, isn't worth having a normal discussion with. There is so much evidence of wrongdoing that you really must question those who promote this. It's completely Un-American anyway.

[wildbilln864]

342. and I rec your post! well said! n/t

[treestar]

356. Why, can't debate?

There is no way for the Criminal who Endangers Americans by Revealing our National Security Secrets Randomly Lovers to defend their position?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

369. It's emotional for them, not logical

So they're really not capable of debate.

I see the same sort of behavior from the GOP wingnuts on the Discussionist, the flip side of the coin. They'll put up a completely rational quote from Obama about, say, that the U.S. is not at war with all Muslims, and say "Can you believe this guy?!?!?!? How stuuuupid!!!!!"

The fact that we've always had signal intelligence services in world history, and further, that unlike the CIA, the NSA has often helped the U.S. assess the true situation (usually finding things are less dire than the imagination of hawks), and thereby preventing the escalation of violence.... is not an argument one can make to people who live in black-and-white-worlds, with their own government being 100% evil.

The fact that these revelations have informed people who intend to attack the United States that their communications have been compromised, thereby directly endangering Americans and aiding the enemy, is also something that doesn't bother them.

They have their opinion and no set of facts, reasoning, or context is going to change it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[treestar]

411. Interesting point about how they might use it for good

To decide we don't have a problem, whereas the Hair-on-Fire Crowd assumes the NSA uses all its information for bad and evil purposes. Yet they can't show anyone was harmed by it. The information can't be used in criminal prosecutions, so you have to by into this absurd idea they will "disappear" a person for opposing the government - as if Comrade Eddie could be "disappeared" without anyone noticing. This is indeed emotional and requires belief in conspiracies like making out that accident that killed the journalist was a government murder plot disguised as an accident. And the absurdity that Julian will be offed by the US if he comes out of hiding.

[billhicks76]

494. You Are Absurd

Like all the NSA trolls. The fact is NSA spends most of it's time on the failed and unpopular drug war and rebranded it as a "war on terror". But they spend little time protecting us. And it's illegal to lie to judges and defense attorneys recreating the chain of evidence through parallel reconstruction. Pulling cars over and searching them in hopes of stealing people's money is exactly the same thing that predicated our patriots revolting against the British two centuries ago. NSA represents totalitarianism. You get paid for spouting the baseless drivel supporting usurping people's basic rights? Democrats...Republicans...Independents... It doesn't matter...we are all against invasions of privacy or trampling of our rights. The only ones who could possibly support such crimes are those who work for law enforcement, intelligence agencies, FIX News or just have an inability to question authority.

[treestar]

496. That's just crazy

I'd hate to see the world that way. They can't use what they find as evidence without going through the whole analysis regarding the rules.

This is not a totalitarian state. Those states don't have limits on the government or ways people can contest the government's actions.

It's insane to claim that we can't have a national security agency. We have the right to defend ourselves from outside. Other countries have them and we can't? How could we continue to exist then?

[billhicks76]

499. Yes They Can...You Need To Read More

And you need to research the term parallel reconstruction. They get around the illegal surveillance by illegally lying to judges about the chain of events. The pull people over for "lane driving" or other hardly heard of infractions and then search vehicles and seize cash without due process. They lie about where the investigation began and because of ignorance like yours they are still getting away with it. It's all about money and always has been.

[billhicks76]

475. Dream On

I think all those things about you. NSA spends most of their time facilitating drug busts anyway and then lying to judges about the chain of evidence. And I view you as the same as GOP wing nuts preying on people's fears.

[AzDar]

431. This ^^

A million times, THIS.

[NanceGreggs]

491. Ah, one of my fave DU cliches ...

"If you don't worship Snowden/Greenwald, that's proof positive that you're an 'NSA-lover'."

I see that things have gone even further - now if you even discuss a film about Snowden without it being a glowing review, you're an 'NSA-lover'.

Black-and-white thinking - it's not just for the right-wing anymore!

[billhicks76]

505. How About If You Support Snowden Then You're A Paulite

I'm personally sick of all the NSA trolls here. And you know what? The crimes that Snowden exposed are what matters and affects all of us. If the whistleblower was a murdering rapist is wouldn't affect the facts that NSA committed massive crimes. For all the fakes that try to dilute the message here by calling people Paul supporters Sheldon Adelson is bankrolling campaign to get rid of Rand Paul for opposing an Iran War. He called him Obama-Lite.

[NanceGreggs]

506. The fact remains ...

... you identified someone who isn't a Snowden fan/worshipper as an "NSA lover" - and on a thread about a god-damned movie, not even a thread about Snowden's actions.

It's just so amusing to watch people who claim that Obama-supporters can't stand any criticism of "their idol" go totally ballistic when someone criticizes GG or Snowden - and now they're going ballistic if someone criticizes a movie about them.

There are NSA trolls here? Yes, mm hmm, of course there are. Sure. No, really. Seriously.

No wonder "50 Shades of Grey" gets so many people riled up here. It's not the content of the film - it's the fact that they live in such a black-and-white world, they don't understand what "shades of grey" even means.

News flash: It is totally possible that people who don't trust GG and/or Snowden are as pissed-off at the NSA as you are. In fact, it's pretty commonplace.

Saying that if you don't trust GG/Snowden means you're an NSA-lover is the same as saying if you weren't for the war in Iraq, you're a terrorist-lover. I remember that being bandied about on RW sites for years. Same dif.

[treestar]

355. You said suck it up

so it would follow that if American Sniper had won, you would suck it up that the war in Iraq must have been politically necessary and you should be for it. That's the basis you are telling others to "suck it up" on.

I could make a movie about how wrong Eddie is and if it's well made, it could win awards. By your theory, you would then have to "suck it up" that Eddie was wrong and a criminal.

[99th_Monkey]

365. Please stop complaining.

suck it up:
To endure a period of mental, physical, or emotional hardship with no complaining.
as in : "I don't care if you're sad, get out there, suck it up and deal with it!"
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suck+it+up

[treestar]

406. Non-responsive

I have not complained about that movie winning its Oscar.

[99th_Monkey]

407. OK - I appreciate that.

I reviewed most of your comments on the string, and you may be technically correct.

However, your posts do appear to have some kind of 'problem' with Citizen4, Greenwald,
Snowden, et. al.

If that's not complaining what is it?

[treestar]

412. Why is it wrong in itself to have a problem with them?

Or with what they have done and with disagreeing? Since you likely always support what they did, why is my consistency worse than yours?

[99th_Monkey]

415. Now we're splitting hairs

Thanks for participating in the discussion tho.

[George II]

107. "truth being told so boldly" from an undisclosed location in Moscow?

[99th_Monkey]

181. .. because the US Gov't has strayed from its claims to legitimacy

as a constitutional democracy that is in any way accountable to it's citizens.

[George II]

191. How has it done that?

[99th_Monkey]

209. By authorizing 24/7 100%-penetration spying on the American citizenry

in clear violation of US Const. & Bill of Rights <-- remember these?

And then when an American citizen DOES dare to call the gov't
on it's mis-deeds, the US gov't doesn't protect that person and
correct the unconstitutional practices. No. The gov't wants to
torture (see Private Manning), prosecute and jail them for a trumped
up "treason" charges.

But you already know all that. so what are you really asking me
again?

[Enthusiast]

314. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[treestar]

358. Your first sentence is untrue

I can see how you work yourself up. Start with an exaggerated and untrue premise and build from there an imaginary situation.

[99th_Monkey]

363. -10 nt

[cstanleytech]

211. As opposed to Russia which has invaded the Ukraine?

[99th_Monkey]

219. Listen. Just because there is a WORSE government than ours

doesn't mean diddly-squat ... but you already know that.

For some odd reason, a Red Herring comes to mind.

[George II]

220. But that "worse" government is the one Snowden has chosen to embrace in lieu of his own.

[99th_Monkey]

221. To the shame of the USA, IMHO

It's shameful that Snowden was 'rewarded' for his bravery & patriotism
by being criminalized by his own government, rather than protected and
honored.

It makes me ashamed of my own gov't.

[cstanleytech]

224. No, that is to the shame of Snowden.

I am not saying though that I believe he is a traitor though because I dont believe he is, he did however break the law regarding the handling of classified material.

[George II]

229. The shame is that he fled the country, unlike most others in similar positions, who WERE heroes

[uhnope]

249. +1

[markpkessinger]

254. Nevermind that heroes like Daniel Ellsberg have endorsed Snowden's decision to leave n/t

[treestar]

414. Yes, we can disagree with Daniel Ellsberg on the subject

We do not have to follow his opinions lock step.

He didn't flee the negative effects. That he'd support Eddie doing so himself is quite generous.

[rpannier]

272. I still find it odd that people don't find him a hero but

Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley and Thomas Drake, all who have knowledge of how the US Government works from their time at the CIA and NSA do.
Jenny Radack, who represents 3 Whistleblowers who satyed in the US (Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe) said the following in an interview
-Referring to the 3 men who stayed as you feel Snowden should have:
Not only did they go through multiple and all the proper internal channels and they failed, but more than that, it was turned against them. ... The inspector general was the one who gave their names to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act. And they were all targets of a federal criminal investigation, and Tom ended up being prosecuted — and it was for blowing the whistle.
and
-I'll also add that I'm not impressed by the chorus saying Snowden would have engaged in proper civil disobedience only if he'd remained at home and slipped his own head in the noose after making his disclosures. That's a position that works only to the benefit of the hangman, except in cases of mass disobedience, which have a chance of overwhelming the police and courts and further gumming up the works. As an army of one, Snowden could have expected little more than a Silverado-style "fair trial followed by a first-class hanging," mostly carried out in secret, no doubt.

Daniel Ellsberg called Snowden "A Great American Hero."

Perry Fellwock, the NSA's first whistleblower, “I think Snowden is a patriot,” he said. “I admire Snowden and some of these other whistleblowers because they’ve come out in a time when there’s not a lot of political support.”
Fellwock does say he thinks Snowden should have stayed, but it doesn't diminish what Snowden did.
If Mr Fellwock is correct in his description of the NSA and the National Security apparatus there may be good reasons to have chosen Russia:
“Most people in those days thought that the NSA and CIA worked for the U.S. government,” he said. “But they don’t. They’re an entity unto itself, a global entity that is comprised of the Five Eyes.” The Five Eyes is the informal name for the intelligence-sharing agreement between the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. “This community operates outside of the Constitution,” Fellwock said, “and from everything I’ve seen, it still does.”

If that is true, Russia is likely one of the few places on this planet where they don't have easy access to him

Also, I guess because they didn't stay in Britain, you don't think Annie Machon or David Schayler are heroes.
Machon and Shayler, former M15 intelligence officers left Britain to blow the whistle on criminal behavior within the British Intelligence Agency.
1. Secret MI5 files held on the very government ministers responsible for overseeing the intelligence services
2. M15 spying on Labour Officials, including Peter Mendelson, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman
3. Illegal MI5 phone taps
4. The 1994 bombing of the Israeli embassy in London, when two innocent people were wrongfully convicted
5. Failed assassination attempts on Libyan Leader Gaddafi. The group paid to kill Gadaffi was planted under the wrong car and several bystanders were killed.

Shayler did return to Britain in 2000 and was tried and sent to jail. He was required by the court to present all the information regarding his defense to both the judge and the prosecution.

[freebrew]

339. Don't forget...

the suiciding of David Kelly.

[markpkessinger]

253. "Chosen to embrace?"

In case you have forgotten, the U.S. State Department withdrew his passport, effectively stranding him there.

[George II]

267. What was he doing in Moscow in the first place? Presumably his final destination.....

....was to be South America. Soooooo, he left Hawaii, flew to Hong Kong, then on to Moscow and then hoped to go to South America.

Someone should have told him that the flight from Hawaii to South America is shorter than the one from Hawaii to Hong Kong, without all the extra travel. He could have been in South America before anyone knew he stole any documents.

Or was his plan to leave a trail of US documents with his buddies the Chinese and the Russians before he set out for South America?

That phony crap about South America is just that - phony. Too bad he wasn't as clever at making up stories as he was at stealing documents.

[markpkessinger]

277. He faced ZERO possibility of a fair trial in the U.S.

Indeed, being charged under the Espionage Act renders ANYONE utterly incapable of mounting any kind of reasonable defense!

[treestar]

497. Everyone charged with a crime could say that

I bet most people charged with crime think it's unfair.

He could have contested the charge and contested the statute under which he was charged. Do we have a great system or what? It's fairer than most.

He could have made a big stink of how much great good he did and even if convicted, gotten a small penalty.

[markpkessinger]

502. Not everyone who is charged with a crime . . .

. . . is charged under the Espionage Act, which effectively renders mounting a defense impossible.

[blackspade]

384. So in the absence of facts you are making stuff up now?

You statements are in the same vein as boxes in a garage, stripper poles, and old news.
It's deflection from the core issues about wrong headed and illegal activities by the US intelligence agencies.

How about you focus on that?

[George II]

399. What did I make up?

From what we know, his final destination after leaving Hawaii was somewhere in South America (I can't find a reference to where, but think I read once it was Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where Greenwald lived).

And if he was going to Rio, one has to wonder why the three stops on the trip from Hawaii were Hong Kong (China), Moscow (Russia), and Havana (Cuba).

Hawaii is only 8,300 miles from Rio, whereas Hawaii to Hong Kong is 5,500 miles, HK to Moscow is 4,400 miles, Moscow to Havana is 5,800 miles and Havana to Rio is another 3,600 miles.

So, he travelled more than 19,000 miles with stops in three countries that would LOVE the information he presumably had, instead of the relatively short 8,300 direct trip.

So I ask again, what did I make up?

[blackspade]

424. Your speculation is entirely made up.

That's what.

[George II]

439. You mean he didn't go to Hong Kong? He didn't go to Moscow? He didn't have a ticket to Havana?

[blackspade]

465. You know what I meant comrade

[markpkessinger]

252. I wasn't aware that the United States' legitimacy was defined in relation to Russia n/t

[cstanleytech]

260. Its not which makes me wonder why he choose Russia

when a better choice to flee to would have been the Vatican.

[markpkessinger]

278. So far as I know . . .

. . . the Vatican doesn't have its own airport.

[cstanleytech]

295. It does however have a heliport. nt

[markpkessinger]

341. So tell me . . .

. . . how would one get f rom Hawaii to the Vatican's heliport without passing through an airport of a country that would have turned him over to U.S. authorities, genius?

No one is denying that he was on the run. But his options were clearly limited.

[cstanleytech]

450. By contacting the Vatican and asking them to provide a private

diplomatic jet for starters assuming the Vatican has any of course.

[markpkessinger]

452. U.S. allies forced the Bolivian president's plane to land based on a rumor Snowden was on board . .

. . . Do you seriously think a Vatican jet wouldn't be subject to the same? You are really reaching here -- desperately so.

[cstanleytech]

453. I dont know if they would divert it but they might not be as tempted

as the Vatican is essentially a city built around a religion that has roughly 2 billion followers where as Bolivia is a relatively insignificant country with a population of 10 - 11 million.

[markpkessinger]

455. "Might" is one helluva gamble . . .

. . . when one faces the prospect of a show trial and decades in prison.

[cstanleytech]

456. I think it was better gamble than going to Russia even if it wasnt part of his plan

and besides if he had made it to one of those other countries I doubt he would be safe because lets face it the CIA does have a habit of kidnapping people when they want them especially from the smaller countries but I dont believe they would dare try to do that from someone who was in Vatican city as its just to risky.

[markpkessinger]

458. I doubt the Vatican would have permitted itself to be placed in that position in the first place n/t

[cstanleytech]

459. Oh you are probably about that but I think he probably safer there than I suspect he will

be in Russia because to be honest I think Russia might try to do a deal with the US down the road and try to trade Snowden to the US if the US will agree say to ignore any future actions in the Crimean Peninsula and the rest of the Ukraine by Russia.

[markpkessinger]

461. That very well could be . . .

Last edited Tue Feb 24, 2015, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . I can't really say what I would have done in if I had been in Snowden's shoes. Certainly, in his situation, there were no sure bets. There weren't even any truly good options. I don't find it odd in the least that he may have figured Russia was as good an option as any other == among a very limited set of options (all of which entailed risk) in the first place. I just can't bring myself to second guess the decisions Snowden made, given what he was facing.We may just have to agree to disagree on that point.

[wildbilln864]

343. irrelevent!

[treestar]

357. There's an entire law passed by that constitutional democracy

that is being followed. And even a Whistleblower law to back up it being enforced properly. Those are laws we chose as a nation to protect our security while also trying to have a way to bring it up if the people entrusted with enforcing that law go wrong. I'd say we are probably better than most nations when it comes to "accountability."

Comrade Eddie randomly threw out tons of that information. He wasn't looking at any particular wrongdoing. And he didn't follow the law, which allows him to Whistle Blow, so he can't hide behind that title.

[99th_Monkey]

367. The NSA 100% penetration spying on Americans 24/7 is an unconstitutional abomination.

No one has provided even one convincing example of how the release of that information harmed Americans, rather Snowden's actions exposed the nefarious draconian nature of NSA spying for all to see.

[cstanleytech]

451. Problem is though Snowden also released alot of other information that wasnt about

the NSA activities inside the US but also its activities in other countries.

[99th_Monkey]

462. I have yet to see any credible evidence that the Snowden file

compromised USA's national security.

aside from hysterical unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.

[cstanleytech]

463. Problem is I only pointed out that some of the

classified material that he released had nothing what to so ever to do with NSA activities inside the US, I didnt touch at all on if it compromised US security because thats debatable whats not debatable is that he violated the law in regards to the handling classified material.

[99th_Monkey]

490. The Constitution & Bill of Rights are higher laws

and Snowden obeyed those, bravely and at great risk to his own heretofore comfortable life.

[cstanleytech]

495. Sorry but neither of those gives anyone a right to break the law. nt

[99th_Monkey]

498. .

[cstanleytech]

500. Boy that sucker is going off maybe you should try reducing the amount you produce?

[blackspade]

389. So, explain how the "Whistleblower law to back up it being enforced properly."

and how has this and other laws been used to "trying to have a way to bring it up if the people entrusted with enforcing that law go wrong"?

Who other than whistle blowers have been charged?
Torturers? Killers? Violators of the Constitution?

And why the use of "comrade?" Red baiting? Is he a communist? Or is this just another silly hyperbolic attack?

[sabrina 1]

478. Red baiting, the last gasp of the far right as they cling to the past where every one on the 'left'

was 'suspect'. But we've been seeing it here lately also.

First time I've ever seen Democrats use it towards anyone. Most democrats understand the historical implications of implying that someone is a Communist.

I suppose it's better than demanding that a journalist be 'hanged' which we also saw here. Thankfully that person is on 'vacation'.

[rhett o rick]

9. Nice use of illogical fallacy, "So because the documentary won an Oscar....that vindicates Snowden?"

He needs no vindication. That's the point.

Whistle-blowers are heroes to those that value freedom. They are despised by Conservative authoritarians.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. and WHO is using the Logical Fallacy?

I think its the guy who believes an Oscar vindicates Snowden...

[rhett o rick]

408. Which guy believes an Oscar vindicates Snowden? nm

[VanillaRhapsody]

445. Apparently the guy that wrote this OP who now admits ha hasn't even seen the movie!

Why did you think I was writing about you?

[rhett o rick]

446. Let's get back to the logical fallacy, strawman, you set up when you infer that the

OP, or someone, thinks the Oscar "vindicates" Snowden. I missed those words in the OP. Plus vindication would indicate that he did something that needed vindication. The only thing he did was expose gross violations of our Constitution. Massive spying on all Americans.

Those here that spew hatred towards Snowden, Greenwald, and all whistle-blowers, do so because they don't like the truth, they want to live in their comfortable bubble of denial.

[VanillaRhapsody]

447. Nothing illogical about it....what IS illogical...is making the proclamation..."suck it up"

about a movie and then admitting you haven't even seen it!

[rhett o rick]

449. I absolutely agree. nm

[gcomeau]

291. Umm, that clearly was *not* the point of the OP. -eom

[Enthusiast]

315. +1 an entire shit load.

[wildbilln864]

344. precisely! n/t

[Scuba]

12. How predictable.

[VanillaRhapsody]

148. Yes sometimes the truth IS predictable isn't it?

[Scuba]

212. The truth is that only authoritarians think Snowden needs any 'vindication.'

[Bluenorthwest]

15. What it specifically means is that among voting members of the Academy who are documentary film

makers, a majority felt this film was the best documentary of the year. This strongly suggests that the film is a good film. The film got the award for being a well made film, which is it, and not because it has a subject matter the voters consider more worthy than the others. All of the nominees were nominated because they were well made. The people who make these choices are other documentary film makers, not politicians or pundits or partisans. Peers of the person being judged, as it should be. They liked it enough to hand over an Oscar.

[msanthrope]

24. It's a good documentary. Especially when you contrast it with Snowden's 'live' performances.

Particularly his 'live' interview hour with NBC---

the differences between his affect are startling.

[joshcryer]

258. Excellent point.

It is absolutely amazing how they are the same person.

[msanthrope]

264. Careful editing and very good direction. nt

[JDPriestly]

104. Do you know people in the Academy who vote on the films?

Cause that's not the way I understand it from the people I (living in California) know who vote on them. I don't know a lot of people who vote on them, but I do know some. They vote on films they like. The content and subject matter of the film is part of the equation for the people I know.

[MADem]

284. Documentarians in the Academy decide on the list of nominees.

Members of the Academy, who vote on the films, are required to have seen them.

Voting
1. Documentaries will be viewed by members of the Documentary Branch, which will use a preferential voting system to produce a shortlist of 15 films. Five nominees will then be chosen by a second round of balloting, again using a preferential voting system.
2. Final voting shall be restricted to active and life members of the Academy who have viewed all of the nominated documentaries.

Rules: http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf

[JDPriestly]

288. And people who make documentaries probably care very much about the content, subject

matter and message of the film. Again, do you know any of the people who are members of the Academy and vote on the films?

[MADem]

290. Again? I think you are confusing me with someone else.

I'm just offering a link to the rules to help clarify the discussion.

[JDPriestly]

297. Sorry if I confused you with someone else. I was out at a meeting between posts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. Then what was this snarky OP about? Certainly not the quality of the film....

I wasn't questioning whether it deserved an Oscar was I?

[PSPS]

29. "Vindicates?" Most people don't share your view that Snowden's heroism needs "vindication."

[VanillaRhapsody]

150. Actually most people do....its a crime...by any stretch of the imagination...

[PSPS]

170. I guess we'll put this under #13

Worshiper/Apologist Hit Parade:

1. This is nothing new
2. I have nothing to hide
3. What are you, a freeper?
4. But Obama is better than Christie/Romney/Bush/Hitler
5. Greenwald/Flaherty/Gillum/Apuzzo/Braun is a hack
6. We have red light cameras, so this is no big deal
7. Corporations have my data anyway
8. At least Obama is trying
9. This is just the media trying to take Obama down
10. It's a misunderstanding/you are confused
11. You're a racist
12. Nobody cares about this anyway / "unfounded fears"
13. I don't like Snowden, therefore we must disregard all of this
14. Other countries do it

[VanillaRhapsody]

172. No lets file this under...."the truth hurts sometimes doesn't it?"

[LiberalLovinLug]

231. Good point

The truth DOES hurt sometimes.

Which is why the whitey tighty righties have their boxers in a bunch over Snowden, and every other whistleblower or dissenter or occupy protester. Because anyone that reveals anything that says America has any faults at all must HATE America. America is the best in the world at everything, don't cha know.

You keep odd company for a member of a Democratic site.

[Enthusiast]

316. +1

[grasswire]

428. +2 nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

437. NO YOU are the one that is keeping Odd company on a Democratic site...

This is Democratic Underground.....Not Glenn Greenwald Underground!

[George II]

171. "Heroism"? Running off to a country that just three decades ago was our greatest enemy....

....and today is invading sovereign nations?

Heroism would have been staying here like most others practicing "non-violent civil disobedience" or "conscientious objectors" and standing up for himself.

I'm sure Mahatma Ghandi would have been proud of his "heroism".

[blackspade]

394. More red baiting...

My B-I-L does work in Russia for fuck sake. Does that make his racist libertarian ass a communist assisting our "greatest enemy" from three decades ago?



And before we start throwing stones about "invading sovereign nations" perhaps we should have a little US history review....

[George II]

401. So then why were Hong Kong and Havana also on his itinerary?

[blackspade]

409. You tell me comrade George....

I'm sure you have a theory....

[grasswire]

429. oh brother -- CREATIVE SPECULATION!

Where do you get this stuff??

[George II]

442. "Creative Speculation"? He DID go to Hong Kong and Moscow, and he DID have a ticket to Havana.

[grasswire]

448. yes, but you are implying that he's a communist fellow traveler because of that itinerary.

And that is creative speculation.

[sabrina 1]

45. What did he do wrong? He reported crimes against the Constitution to the American people. Can you

explain why exposing the crimes of the Bush administration makes him guilty of anything? Or were you a supporter of Bush's anti-Consitutional spying on the American people?

I don't remember anyone on the Left over the years of that awful era who were not OUTRAGED at the destruction of the US Constitution.

In fact, when the first Whistle Blowers appeared on the scene, most of them Republicans at the time, they were lauded as heroes, which they were, for having the courage to refuse to go along with these crimes.

[awoke_in_2003]

88. Some are probably worried...

that one day someone will come forward and say a democratic president is doing the same thing. Different president, same security apparatus that nobody wants to rein in.

[sabrina 1]

109. I know. And that is so sad, that people would care more about

something like that than their own country.

[awoke_in_2003]

122. Most want their team to win...

and have a hard time seeing when their side is screwing the pooch.

[sabrina 1]

129. I understand that, I wanted our team to win also because I thought 'winning' meant something

different to what it apparently DOES mean. I thought it meant reversing all of Bush/Cheney's anti-Constitutional policies, I thought it meant clearing the government of all the warmongers and Bush appointees that were placed to protect those policies, people like Clapper, eg.

But when you realize your team is throwing the game, seems to me, you let them know, either shape up or ship out.

[awoke_in_2003]

133. I agree fully...

I remember how I felt when I voted in 2008. For the first time in my life I thought my vote was going to mean something. And for those who may be wondering- yes, I know it would have been worse off had McCain won. I really get that. I just wish our side would do more than pay lip service to privacy concerns.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. "Your team"????

You see this as a win for your "team"?


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

OMG....hilarious...

[cui bono]

157. You completely missed the point and what sabrina meant by "team".

Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

OMG....hilarious...

[VanillaRhapsody]

158. No actually I didn't....

and yes...OMG Hilarious...

[sabrina 1]

217. Yes, actually, you did. But that's okay, no one else did!

[VanillaRhapsody]

276. No I didn't and you know that....

What did this thread start off with? "Snowden Haters" And you didn't mean "my team" like that.....really now! "But that's not how I meant it..."

[sabrina 1]

279. 'My team' = Democratic Party, the Blue Team. Now read it again and read the post I responded to.

So 'no, you didn't' obviously.

[VanillaRhapsody]

318. If you cannot pledge to support the winner of the Democratic Primary....EVEN if that is

Hillary Rodham Clinton....then the Democratic Party are not "your team"....Obviously....and You don't understand the meaning of the word team either! There is no "I" in team...

[sabrina 1]

364. Wow!

I don't join 'teams' that screw up badly and then require 'pledges' to keep on screwing up. My team recognizes when they have screwed up but only of their coaches let them know how much they are screwing up.

Pledge, you mean like Grover Norquist required of Republicans, making it impossible for them to do anything BUT support their worst and most losing policies?

No thanks, I am a Democrat. We don't need Grover Norquist to tell us what we stand for.

I noticed that a few Republicans realized that taking that pledge was a huge mistake, and a few of them DARED to reject it. WE on the Left cheered for them for finding their minds and refusing to be controlled by people who did not have their best interests in mind.

So who should WE make this 'pledge' to? Which Third Way screw up who lost two mid terms for our Party, do you suggest we pledge our minds and souls to and simply stop thinking for ourselves AND our party, and let them do to our Party what Norquist and his pledge did to the other party?

'Pledge of loyalty'??

The very thought of 'loyalty pledges' should send shivers down the spine of any Democrat! And it does ...

Definitely an Orwellian concept which thankfully OUR team is not likely to embrace.

You seem to be confused about Party Loyalty. The Party works for the people, THEY are ones who took an oath of office to work for US, the people who elected them.

Since when did this change to 'the plebs must raise their hands to the overlords and pledge their loyalty, or else ...?

The very idea shows how lost some people are. How much they have given up, which is fine, they just don't get to take over OUR party by giving up OUR rights to decide how our Party represents us.

A Political Party that is on the right track doesn't need to force its members to 'swear a loyalty oath'.. Doing their job is all it takes to get that support.

[VanillaRhapsody]

370. Like I said...you don't understand the meaning of a "team"

One for all and ALL for one....and YOU were the one that called it a team. If you become a free-agent....you are no longer a member of the team....you are an "Independent"....that is how it works. Nobody on "the team" is doing it for themselves...is to form "a More perfect Union"

Just like a Union is....and that is all a political party is...and in MY case its the Union of Democrats!

and talk of "loyalty oaths" falls on deaf ears.....because being on a team means taking a "loyalty oath"....it means being LOYAL to your teammates!

[sabrina 1]

397. You don't understand teams. Teams need good coaches in order to keep winning. The coaches

of Political Parties in Democracies, are THE PEOPLE. THEY tell the team how to win, what 'moves' they need to make in order to remain the winning team. If the coaches see that they have some bad players on their team, they get rid of them and replace them with GOOD players.

WE are the coaches of this party/team.

How on earth did you get this backwards? We are a DEMOCRACY.

Management does not take loyalty oaths. Players sign contracts agreeing to do the very best they can for the management of the team. WE are that MANAGEMENT. Not the PLayers.

And when the players on a team, see politicians, break that contract, they get fired.

[VanillaRhapsody]

402. a President is not a coach....a President is a Leader....

we are not the coaches of the Democrats...WE are the team...WE decide our direction by a Primary Election of the Leader WE want among us....


Wow...just wow....you have never been on an actual team have you?

The definition from Websters...

a number of persons associated together in work or activity: as
a : a group on one side (as in football or a debate)
b : crew, gang


WE are the TEAM....WE decide our fate together... All for one and One for ALL! United we stand divided we fall...WE are the Democratic Party...and we are ALL in this together. If you do not support OUR collective decisions...you are NOT one of us!

[VanillaRhapsody]

435. teams NEED loyal players...that is all...WE are NOT the management...

being AMERICAN means we ARE Teammates...NOT management.

How did YOU get this backwards....what you are saying is the ANTITHESIS of American!

[sabrina 1]

476. I just explained what a team is to you. Politicians are the players, WE ARE THE MANAGEMENT. They

sign a contract with US, the PEOPLE. When they break that contract, we fire them and find a better player. I can't make it any more simply than that. We owe NO loyalty or OATHS to any politician. THEY WORK FOR US. It is NOT the other way around.

We pay THEM with our tax dollars to 'play' for US. Period. Any loyalty oaths there may be, need to come from them, and they DO. It's just that they appear to forget their oaths a lot of the time.

[grasswire]

430. that isn't a team you describe

It's a cult.

[VanillaRhapsody]

436. Yes...IT is a team....and a good team REQUIRES team loyalty!

A Union of Democrats....a Team of Democrats...WE are all in this together...WE don't sit on the sidelines WE make plays....when WE vote WE win!

[sabrina 1]

477. Thank you, scary isn't it? Pledges of loyalty to OUR employees, who ever HEARD of such a thing in a

democracy?

In a monarchy maybe, one has no choice or lose their head.

But in a democracy the PEOPLE are the 'team' management who pay the big salaries and for all the benefits.

The politicians are the players who actually DO take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Which is essentially the people.

Someone is very confused about our system of government. But it explains a lot to me about the attitude that we must just 'accept' who they tell us to accept.

I hope the next generation learns more about our form of government so this cult like attitude towards those who work and are paid by the People.

[VanillaRhapsody]

486. Who ever heard of such a thing in Democracy?

How about the Founding Fathers! They were also a TEAM...

WE are Americans...WE take loyalty to each other very seriously

If you are in a Union....you are loyal to the Union

WE are Democrats...WE are loyal to each other....

You are right...someone IS very confused about government...and that person is NOT me...

[bvar22]

493. Oh Great.... Loyalty Oaths.

[awoke_in_2003]

304. yes, you did

but you always do.

[VanillaRhapsody]

323. No I didn't....and the point still stands!

[wildbilln864]

345. yes you did but keep denying it! n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

371. I deny nothing....what is YOUR description of a team by the way?

Love to hear this....

[wildbilln864]

376. well...

at you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

380. Just as I thought....you cannot describe a team

because it is the antithesis of your position of "individuality"! Just another "rugged individualist". A team is a collective...they don't work "Independently" that is why there is also no I in team!

If you cannot accept the decision of the "collective"...then you are not ON a team!

[wildbilln864]

382. ok then.

n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

383. Exactly!

[wildbilln864]

390. feeling like some sort of big shot now!?

n/t

[ReRe]

273. And had you watched the Doc...

... tonight on HBO, you would realize that that is exactly why Snowden did what he did. He had hopes that PO would be different than the Bush junta, but instead there was a doubling down on the spying, not a reining-in of the unconstitutional spying on our citizens, or the citizens of other democratic countries.

[wildbilln864]

393. yep! thank you. n/t

[ReRe]

425. You and I are becoming fast friends.

[wildbilln864]

427. cool!

[Pisces]

351. Nobody will rein in anything. Whatever we can do we will, wether we want to believe it or not.

The problem now lies in the fact that the enemy ( Al Queada, Isis, Boko Haram, Hamas, put in whatever name you want)
now knows the extent of our spying and can come up with counter ways to communicate which make it harder to
find out whats going on.

If you think the exposure of the intrusion will do anything to stop or slow it down you are asleep. Even if laws are enacted
it won't matter. What can be done, will be done.

Snowden is not a hero for going to Russia and China with sensitive info. He could have published this info and done
the documentary with Glen and stayed to face the music. He would have had the support of most people. Now we look
at him with suspicion because he chose Russia.

A martyr is more powerful than turncoat.

[awoke_in_2003]

443. You don't think they already know? nt

[treestar]

106. Your conclusions are off

Or, you can't expect other people TK be convinced when your argument calls for agreement with them.

[gcomeau]

289. How fucking hard is this to understand?

That that is not the only damn thing he did?

Greenwald personally has even admitted himself that Snowden gave the Chinese intel he should not have given them, that had not one damn thing to do with the Constitution or the American people, for the purposes of getting them on his side to cover his own ass.

If anyone can't understand what's wrong with that they have serious issues.

[blackspade]

398. Citation?

just curious.

[gcomeau]

438. Here you go.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html

Greenwald said he would not have published some of the stories that ran in the South China Morning Post. “Whether I would have disclosed the specific IP addresses in China and Hong Kong the NSA is hacking, I don’t think I would have,” Greenwald said. “What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China.”

[blackspade]

464. Thanks.

[VanillaRhapsody]

321. Can you explain why Muhammad Ali went to jail?

He stood up for his principles too...people with conviction don't run away...

[sabrina 1]

362. Yes, because something went terribly wrong with this democracy back then. And now it has gone

wrong again.

Snowden has paid a huge consequence for his patriotic decision to expose government malfeasance. No American Whistle Blower should have to make the sacrifices all Whistle Blowers will be making and have made, from now, if this country were still a democracy.

We have witnessed the silencing of Whistle Blowers over the past, more than a decade now, when they made the same decision to inform the public of what their government is up to.

Drake and Binney eg, went through all the channels supposed to protect Whistle Blowers. They believed back then, they had protections. They found out just how far gone things really are, worse than they had originally thought. To the point where their patriot acts resulted in the public NOT receiving the information they were entitled to.

So, now, having witnessed the treatment of Whistle Blowers, the goal still the same, to inform the public, a new strategy has emerged, and Drake, Ellsberg and Binney and all advocates for Whistle Blowers, AGREE that this is the ONLY way to inform the public. Because our democracy is now so damaged, the normal channels are no longer open to them.

Snowden has the full support of those whose main goal is and was to protect this democracy.

He is hated by those who have harmed this country and those who care only about maintaining the anti-Democratic Secret Government, set up by one of the worst, most criminal administrations in recent memory.

I am on the side of those who are working so hard to stop them from doing any harm to our rights and to this country.

[VanillaRhapsody]

372. No...its called COURAGE!

Courage of your convictions....of which Snowden doesn't have!

[VanillaRhapsody]

374. even if THAT means supporting criminal activity....Yeah I get it!

If Snowden had of used an explosive device to prove his point...I guess that is okay by you too. By the way....you have no idea whether or not anyone lost their lives because of what he did!

[sabrina 1]

392. Well, unless our Intel community are lying to us, again, we DO know.

'If Snowden HAD used' btw.

No, I am opposed to violence, and thankfully so is he and Greenwald and Poitras.

Don't 'guess' about what other 'think'. Ask them, I am more than willing to say what I think myself.

[bahrbearian]

46. Are you sure you want to be the 1st Responder.

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. Yes I am sure....

very sure...

[uhnope]

63. your point about American Sniper is right on

good job

[SaveOurDemocracy]

83. uhhh ... nope. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

322. Uh yes it is.....

These are movies....those were the Oscars. Getting an Oscar doesn't mean anything other than an award for the film...it doesn't mean you are acquitted of all crimes.

[treestar]

110. [phone]

And note there was no response to that point.

[JDPriestly]

113. But American Sniper didn't win and for good reason. I would not even watch it.

It's sick that we did what we did in Iraq. And watching a film about it is even sicker.

[uhnope]

121. I respect that.

But it's also a film about what being a soldier does to families.

Primarily, it's a film that allows you to see what you want to see in it. So, yes, if you are determined to see AS as a film glorifying/condoning the giant war crime that was the war in Iraq, you will see that and you will hate it.

[JDPriestly]

199. I already know what war does to families. Don't need to see the film.

[Luminous Animal]

223. Yep. Being a soldier destroyed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi families.

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for some fuck head who voluntarily signed up and gleefully executed human beings.

[ozone_man]

261. +1

I won't see it for the same reasons you mention.

[VanillaRhapsody]

152. and that is also not what I asked....

but if it won the Oscar...would it vindicate that? Would some here see that as a win for the"team" as one poster put it?

[JDPriestly]

198. Some would. And some would see it as a loss for their team. I would. But I might change my

mind if I saw the movie. So I'm guessing that I would see it as a loss. I probably won't watch the movie. Sounds absolutely awful.

[pscot]

71. What Snowden revealed is the only vindication he needs

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. actually its still a crime....not vindicated...

[ReRe]

281. OK...

... what about the crimes of the government? What's the big deal about taking the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution? It looks nice and all and it seems all patriotic, taking the oath, it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling, then we turn around and find out it was nothing more than lip service. How can you defend that?

[randome]

337. You know that is exactly what Conservatives say, right?

The President's 'unconstitutional' power grab. His 'unconstitutional' executive actions. What's the 'big deal' about admitting that trotting out the word 'unconstitutional' does not automatically win every argument?

If one feels strongly about one's position, then the case needs to be made. Snowden should not get to decide all this on his own. I didn't vote for him.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

375. Its exactly what this Liberal says actually.

When he took this job....he was told directly that doing this constituted a crime....he signed a document to prove he understood that FACT!

[ReRe]

422. I don't know what the Conservatives say.

... I don't follow them. If I see their faces on the TV, I reach for the remote. If I wanted to know what the Conservatives are/were saying, I would turn to FOX. And that NEVER happens. Not a "word-trotter" either, whatever that is.

I think you've got a "false-equivalency" thing going there, randome. The Conservatives sure wasn't screaming "unconstitutional" when GWB was in there, were they? They hate the Constitution and you know it.

[Caretha]

324. It used to be a crime

to marry inter-racially.

You want to defend that too?

[niyad]

76. one was a documentary, one was a work of fiction. two different genres.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. Still didn't answer the question....

this was about a poster thinking that this MEANS something about Snowden....it doesn't. It means a documentary about a criminal act won an Oscar.

[niyad]

202. meaning is in the mind of the beholder. there are many who believe that snowden

is a hero, not a criminal.

we are all entitled to our own views. sometimes history or events confirm those views, sometimes they don't.

[George II]

105. I've seen award winning movies about Al Capone and Bonnie and Clyde.....

.....have you seen the one about Hannibal Lechter or Goodfellas?

[VanillaRhapsody]

156. Precisely!

Did it vindicate them?

[JackRiddler]

141. Nope. Snowden requires no vindication.

It's the unaccountable surveillance state and the empire of war that are on trial here, and always have been, despite efforts such as yours to distract. The award is merely a case of Hollywood happening to do the right thing, which sometimes they do.

[Number23]

240. This whole "Snowden is God because he won an Oscar" thing is just about the dumbest thing

this year. I know it's February and it's still early but good Lord.

That shining Oscar doesn't vindicate him except in the most shallow of ways. It's embarrassing that a handful put so much weight on that and somehow believe that the more than 50% of Americans that think what he did was wrong/illegal must now be crying into our corn flakes. I don't have much in my pocket right now but I'm willing to bet all of it that the Oscar win hasn't changed one person's opinion about him and what he did.

[lild]

248. is that the sound of it being sucked up?

[VanillaRhapsody]

274. not unless that is what laughter sounds like to you...

[Katashi_itto]

480. Chauncey Gardner speaks!

[Blue_Tires]

2. Hell, I'm *glad* he won

It'll make his subsequent downfall that much sweeter...

[Unknown Beatle]

16. Even if, and that's a big if, he's caught,

he's already exposed the NSA for having committed egregious breaches of trust, to say the least.

Snowden has exposed, for all the world to see, the NSA illegal mass spying on US citizens as well as others around the world, yet people still think he's a traitor and hate him for what he's done. I'll never understand that.

[grasswire]

26. there can be no downfall

He achieved his goal. His goal was to begin a national conversation about the surveillance state. That has happened, and happened globally. He won. Forever. No going back.

He won no matter what happens to him at the hands of the deep state. If they martyr him, he just wins bigger. He is in the catbird seat, and at peace with his situation.

Yeah, a few pajama warriors call him names and threaten him. That is the price of our liberty, to be called names by pajama warriors and defenders of the deep state.

There will be no downfall for him. He knows it, and so do those who value our Constitution.

[Blue_Tires]

85. A shame he doesn't have the stones to "start that conversation" in Moscow....

Also a shame that he has deliberately shielded Silicon Valley, the Telecoms and Corporate America from *their* culpability...Of course this is where I mention that the majority of his published leaks outed legit (if morally questionable) ops against foreign targets that had nothing to do with any bullshit "whistleblowing", or "protecting Americans' privacy"...But you already knew that....

And the game will be changed when (not if) it is finally revealed he's been offering indirect "assistance" to the Russian government...

Time will tell, either way...

[zeemike]

135. It is not having stones that you are suggesting, it is being stupid.

I like what Patton had to say...No man ever won a war by dying for his country...well that applies here too. being a Kamikaze for truth is a stupid thing to do.

[grasswire]

144. back away from the spy novels....

....because something is separating you from reality now.
Can't make heads nor tails of your rant, honestly.

Time has told. Snowden won, already.

[2banon]

467. I think it might be personal, grasswire. There's something pathological going on there.

to say that level of hatred is irrational would be woefully understating it I think.

I may be 'mis remembering' but if IRC, that poster fancies himself a journalist (?)

I'm guessing he's pissed cuz he didn't get tapped for the big one. GG got it instead.

[grasswire]

468. oh really

I have sensed that smoldering jealousy, but I didn't know it was because of journalism.

[JDPriestly]

117. The Greenwald/Poitras/Snowden/Guardian team has already won so many honors that any

"subsequent downfall" will ruin the reputations and place in history for the people who try to wreak vengeance on Snowden, not on Snowden.

What is done is done. The world is grateful and has demonstrated its gratitude to Snowden.

That's all we need to know. His place in history is secure. The place of the NSA? Also secure but not very enviable.

[Aerows]

241. I cherish

the hatred and drink the tears of those who wish Edward Snowden would just go away and be a nobody, the things that he revealed about the Surveillance State to never be discussed, and those that only agree with it because it was under the Obama administration (while conveniently forgetting it started under the Bush administration).

I don't like the subversion of the American justice system the Surveillance state makes possible. I don't like the fig leaf of the "FISA Court" that makes a mockery of the justice system.

Mostly, though, I don't like persecution of whistleblowers. There has never been a whistleblower in history that hasn't been prosecuted, hounded, vilified, and the end acknowledged that they were right to speak up. For a recent example, I'll point to Watergate.

[ReRe]

280. Right, Aerows...

... that's where the rub comes... that PO has allowed it all to continue on, instead of putting a stop to it. Some people just don't understand democracy and the Constitution. It's all straight party politics in their minds. They can't see beyond it.

As for me, I'm on the side of democracy and the Constitution, no matter what party resides in the WH.

[merrily]

301. Upton Sinclair...

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair.

Of course, "salary" is a touch too narrow. Could be assets, power, tax rate, etc.

Tip of the chapeau to the DUer who has that quote as his or her sig line.

[ReRe]

423. Yeah...

... he said that in "The Jungle", right? A timeless quote, for sure. I highly recommend that book to any young DUers. I need to pull that little paperback back down off the shelf and re-read it. I just looked up high in a bookcase here by my computer to see if I could lay my eyes on it, and there it is.

[wildbilln864]

348. A-fucking-men! n/t

[lild]

246. I think you are supposed to cackle maniacally when quoting supervillains

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH

[DisgustipatedinCA]

334. I'm still waiting for those promised links, in which you will prove Greenwald is a liar.

Waiting.

[2banon]

466. ....

[MADem]

3. Well, that was a nasty and confrontational subject line, wasn't it?

There's absolutely no "suck it up" or "Snowden haters" in the title of the referenced article, is there?

Spoiling for a fight, perhaps? Way to advance discussion on DU!

[99th_Monkey]

7. Title line of op were 1/2 my words .. yep. So what?

I did make that pretty clear I think.

[MADem]

8. You led with the nasty. Your choice. Whatever. nt

[BrotherIvan]

82. What's that word again?

Irony.

[MADem]

286. There's no "irony" in leading with a divisive subject line to start a thread.

It's just a negative approach to discussion. It invites argument instead of conversation, and draws unnecessary battle lines. It also lacks nuance.

DU always used to be a place for good discussions, that's happening less and less lately. It's unfortunate.

[msanthrope]

18. Well--given the last OP--that was deleted by this poster, natch.....this is a step up!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026258878


I applaud 99th for moderation this time!!!

[MADem]

28. I am just getting tired of "anticipated confrontation."

Not everybody plays that game, but it really brings down the board. It's like pleading for a fight and not even being coy about it. It's not meta, but it's deliberately disruptive and it's happening too often. It ruins the opportunity to discuss differences without this automatic "framing" of people who take the other POV as "haters" who have to "suck it up." I mean, really--put that shit on your facebook page if you don't want a wide range of opinions!

[msanthrope]

33. It's easy to post articles--harder so to defend an ideal with articles. A lost art here on DU. nt

[MADem]

39. "Team sports" or "high school cliques!"

So little discussion!

[msanthrope]

43. And rec-gaining....as if the multidude of one's socks meant approval....nt

[MADem]

54. Sad that this drives people so profoundly. I mean, really--it's supposed to be a nice way to pass

the time...to exchange views about politics, the news, what's happening in the culture...treating it like some kind of "war" is just childish and dumb.

I can't figure out the reason for the whole "sock puppet" thing that crops up occasionally either--it is a sad commentary on the emptiness of a person's life that they'd need to do that kind of thing to fake popularity or get around a ban. Tsk tsk...

[msanthrope]

58. For shits and giggles....if you click on some recs, you'll see that the only time in the last 6

months they posted was to K&R the same OPs thread.

This is what I call the K&R sock....they don't actually post, or post in innocuous forums, so as to not draw attention.

[MADem]

62. Admins should start doing some IP checks--couldn't hurt. Might help. nt

[msanthrope]

64. I think admin just ought to collect fees. nt

[MADem]

69. Maybe this should devolve to a paid membership site--something's gotta give.

I don't have a star anymore (not a fan of paypal, don't use checks much either). I wish they'd find a way to collect fees without involving paypal--I just don't like them and I don't trust them!

I just did a gofundme for an ill relative--that was pretty straightforward, and no frou-frou "joining" or bank account association involved. We'll see if I start getting weird emails...!

[Bobbie Jo]

271. Results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Mon Feb 23, 2015, 10:54 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

For shits and giggles....if you click on some recs, you'll see that the only time in the last 6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6268377

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing people who recc'd this of being sock puppets is nasty and over the top. And a violation of community standards

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 23, 2015, 11:03 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is no direct call out Here so I will not hide this.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh please. Stop alert stalking people you don't like. Besides, she's absolutely right.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So he/she kicks and runs..I see no problem with that....I read DU for several years before I actually posted anything...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It may be in bad taste, but I don't see this poster naming names or anything. People are free to draw their own conclusions.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

heh, watch your back...

[msanthrope]

332. My, my....Hit a little close to home, I guess. nt

[one_voice]

95. The thread last night discussing the Oscar win..

ended with 'so there'

The first thought that came to mind was, might as well have used nana nana boo boo.

I mean really--'so there'? Greenwald was holding an Oscar. So there. **arms crossed, and tongue stuck out at you**. That's what I thought/pictured when I read it.

Right up there with my daddy can beat your daddy.

[cui bono]

99. Yes, and why would you think that? It could have been directed at right wingers.

Perhaps it was the loud voices of the authoritarians on here who continually attempt to swiftboat a pulitzer prize winning journalist who got out information that the govt was spying on its citizens. You know, the ones who post no substantial arguments, just attempts at smearing both GG and Snowden couple with that infamous smiley. Maybe because those posts exist you assumed it was directed at them?

[one_voice]

165. Do you often post on a Democratic site...

with right wingers being your target 'audience'? Dunno, but that seems odd to me.

Well considering you're going on about substantial arguments and smilies, it seems all the more childish to me. Just my opinion...which I'm entitled to.

[cui bono]

169. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

I hope you are even handed when doling it out to others as criticism.

As for me, I tend to give back what is given. In fact, I often model my posts after the post to which I am responding. In that case it seemed entirely appropriate given the fervor with which people attempt to swiftboat a pulitzer prize winning journalist. Hell, in that thread there was a lunatic calling for his hanging, complete with profane name-calling.

[TheKentuckian]

227. Unfortunately it increasingly seems so. Lots of conservatives nowadays.

[MADem]

108. Hee hee---you gave me my laugh of the day!

"Right up there with my daddy can beat your daddy."

Remember when that was a common bully threat? Like kids could get their daddies to beat the crap out of one another in some sort of proxy neighborhood war!

Nowadays, it's a miracle if daddy will get off the barcolounger, or is even home! "My daddy can beat your daddy on visitation next weekend!!!"

"Well, that won't work--my daddy's visitation isn't till the weekend after next!!!"



It is like that around here some days....

[Cha]

259. Calling out and insulting with pettiness the last time, too..eh? I can kind of tell by the replies.

[msanthrope]

265. Worse...disgusting OP source, left up, far too long. nt

[Marr]

111. There was never "discussion" to be had from the more virulent Snowden attackers.

All I recall is a lot of bullshit, spin, grade school insults, and absurd denials, repeated like religious mantras. We'd all be better off without their 'discussion' anyway.

[MADem]

283. The subject line title divides the board and spoils for a fight. It was unnecessary.

The actual title of the article would have worked just fine, and maybe encouraged more productive conversation.

This kind of stuff is just unhelpful. Starting out with an exhortation to "Choose Sides" about whether an award should be given is a poor tactic if anyone wants genuine discussion. The AWARD, which is for the film MAKERS, is a separate issue from the conduct of the subject of the film or one's approval/disapproval of what he did, but the subject line convolutes the two issues. One can love the film and hate the "star" of it, or love the "star" and hate the film--they don't HAVE to go together, but this thread demands otherwise.

We'll never know, in this thread, anyway, if there was any real "discussion" to be had about the AWARD given by the MPAAS--never mind Snowden's actions--because the well has been pretty much poisoned by the subject line framing of the article.

Your last sentence sounds a lot like "You're with 'im, or agin' 'im." We'd really "all be better off without their 'discussion' anyway?" Only praise is allowed? No dissent? Everyone go along with the program? There's only one acceptable point of view? Hmm. See how you sound? Hint: Not good.

You can choose to try to elevate the discourse, or not. I can't demand, but I can--and will--point out.

[merrily]

306. +1.

[George II]

114. Yes, quite "republican", like "why do you hate America" or "you're either with us or against us"!

[merrily]

307. Much more like "Hillary haters," "Obama haters," etc.

Things seen on DU daily without protest from DU's right.

[treestar]

115. So true

This is a victory for the film makers not Comrade Eddie.

[BlueCaliDem]

327. Hehe...Comrade Eddie. So apropos. eom

[treestar]

354. DUer msanthrope I think started it!

Eddie does find Russia to be a bastion of human rights and transparency!

[Logical]

208. LOL, whining about titles now? Hit a nerve? nt

[MADem]

282. You really think a subject line "calling out" board members is helpful?

Name calling elevates the tone here? All I can say is that your approval of calling DUers "haters" who need to "suck it up" says so much about you. And your little goad/bait (whining/hit a nerve?) says even more. Pat yourself on the back--the DUscar for lowering the tone goes to you!

I haven't seen the movie yet, and I have absolutely no problem with the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences giving their awards to the people of their choosing. See, I "get" how the system works. It's not the "People's Choice" awards, it's the Oscars. My gripe wasn't about the award--it was about framing a subject line in an attempt to divide the DU community, before anyone even had a chance to read the article and come to their own conclusions.

I didn't like "You're with 'em, or agin' 'em" when George Bush said it. I sure as hell don't expect to see that kind of crap here. But hey, you sure proved me wrong, didn't you?

[Number23]

244. And when you consider that by every measure, it is conservatives that have supported Snowden

in greater numbers, I'm wondering how this little award from "Hollyweird" is going to go down? I don't think that getting support from the "granola eaters" in Hollywood will help him much.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-right-rallies-to-edward-snowden/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/edward-snowden-support_n_5071938.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/24/the_new_snowden_loving_republican_party.html

[bvar22]

433. "it is conservatives that have supported Snowden" (Number23, post 244)

You have it exactly backwards.
You should get out more often.

[Number23]

434. Yes, don't let the several articles I linked to that CONFIRM what I wrote distort your foolish

preconceived notions.

Bvar post #433 - I don't believe anything that doesn't support what I already believe. 'Cause I'm really different from the Tea Party that way.

Ahem....

A 2013 Gallup poll found 53 percent of Americans disapprove of the NSA's program. This is an Oscar issue that Republicans support more strongly than Democrats, with 63 percent of Republicans saying they disapprove compared with 40 percent of Democrats. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/23/the-oscars-were-very-political-this-year-but-the-issues-werent-all-that-controversial/

[merrily]

305. Much like the omnipresent references to "Hillary haters," "Obama haters," etc.

[Electric Monk]

4. Here come the authoritarians. This thread is guaranteed a hundred plus replies with little substance

Or did I just jinx it by saying that?

Hmmm....

[rhett o rick]

11. As I mentioned above: "Whistle-blowers are heroes to those that value freedom. They are despised by

Conservative authoritarians." Conservatives despise all that dare speak truth to power. They don't want to know what's behind the curtain.

[Electric Monk]

510. I must admit, I didn't expect this to pass 500 replies, but here we are. Can it make a thousand? nt

[FSogol]

6. LOL, do we need to explain to Amy Davidson that "prosecute him under the Espionage Act" won't

work as a play on words with "reason" like "treason" did?

[cascadiance]

27. Nah... I think "persecute him under the Espionage Act" works better in that instance!

[PADemD]

10. Citizenfour on HBO tonight at 9 p.m.

[msanthrope]

19. It's free on the Internets. Cryptome should have it. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

137. I'm watching… Here's more info...

CITIZENFOUR, which last night won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature…


The film debuts on HBO tonight at 9PM ET| PT (http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/citizenfour).

I SO look forward to watching this tonight!

[Scuba]

13. Some may want to "hang the traitor" but fact is, he should not have to even face trial.

[NYC Liberal]

41. Snowden believes leakers should be shot. His words.

So you evidently disagree with the man himself.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Believes or believed?

People do evolve in their beliefs. I believe our President has mentioned evolving on several of his beliefs over the last 6 or 7 years.

[F4lconF16]

78. Yeah, and he changed his mind. That's like saying Obama doesn't believe in gay marriage. nt

[NYC Liberal]

167. Oh, and what does he think about Social Security? Does he still think

people who support it are "retards"?

Sorry but I refuse to support a right-wing libertarian nut job. I have zero respect for him.

[F4lconF16]

173. That's all well and good.

But BS doesn't help your point.

[NYC Liberal]

195. I look at the full picture. Just because Dick Cheney supports same-sex marriage doesn't mean

I support Dick Cheney. And I would hardly hold him up as a representative of marriage equality the way Snowden fans hold Snowden up.

[cui bono]

175. What does that have to do with anything?

If you were in a theater and a teabagger yelled "fire!" would you disregard it just because they are a teabagger?

Sheesh.

[NYC Liberal]

193. I don't support right-wing nuts. You're welcome to.

That's your right.

[cui bono]

197. So you would sit in a burning theater rather than listen to a teabagger tell you it's on fire?

Wow. Takes all kinds. Although, that sounds very teabaggerish actually.

[NYC Liberal]

239. Nope. I just wouldn't call myself a supporter.

Just like how even though Dick Cheney supports marriage equality doesn't mean I support him, praise him, or think he's not a right-wing asshole.

By the way, Snowden, being a right-wing libertarian, would probably oppose those evil government regulations (like building codes) that could have prevented the fire from happening in the first place.

[Maedhros]

230. "Liberal."

[NYC Liberal]

236. Liberals don't support right-wing libertarians who hate Social Security.

[gcomeau]

292. Yep... right about the time the white house changed hands. -eom

[riderinthestorm]

81. Obama used to believe in denying gays their right to marriage equality. He changed his mind

Shockingly enough people with open minds can change their minds once they are confronted with the facts.

That's called gaining maturity and wisdom.

Your repetition of Snowden's position from the past only makes you look silly. Clearly he got to the NSA and once he saw the egregiousness of the surveillance, he could not stand by. Its completely understandable and anyone who has held an opinion on something in their twenties, only to be confronted with new realities in their thirties, usually grows and changes.

Thats a good thing.

If you haven't ever changed your mind on anything in your life once you knew the facts, then I pity you.

Obviously Snowden has grown and changed with his new discoveries at the NSA.

[randome]

91. Yes, but did Obama express hatred for LGBT individuals?

Snowden said leakers should be shot in the balls. That's an entirely different level of "changing one's mind". The fact that the world has not rallied to Snowden's cause after going on 3 years now is evidence that people have different interpretations of the documents he gave away.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

124. Maybe he learned new facts about what was going on in our government and that is why he

changed his mind.

I don't understand why people come to DU with their minds made up and criticize others for learning, evolving and changing their minds.

There is no point to discussions like this if you are not willing to change your mind.

I was rather critical of Chelsea Manning when she first revealed her secrets. I have had to keep secrets in my life because I promised to keep them. And the fact that she did not disturbed me at first. That was before I really thought about the horror of the secrets that she was being required to keep. I think there are situations when a citizen must speak out in a democracy and inform other citizens that their freedom, their democracy is in danger because of overstepping by the secretive people in charge.

That was something I realized and admitted to only after learning the facts.

The point in Edward Snowden's making his revelations was to wake people up to the surreptitious destruction of our democracy by the people we trust to make us safe.

People who don't understand are pretty hopeless in my opinion.

[randome]

132. He wasn't an intelligence analyst. How would he have known anything?

And if he did, where's the evidence? Other than metadata collection which has been ruled many times to be legal? And the fact that the NSA spies on other countries, which is what spy agencies do?

I think it's clear he stole as many documents as he could get and didn't understand half of them, which is why he dumped them to corporate media offices so they could find out if he actually had anything.

I'm sorry, I just think the whole thing was never well-thought out.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

203. Please read Greenwald's book.

[randome]

210. No, I have an enormous backlog of books to read.

I'm trying to keep up with my daughters' reading tastes. And Greenwald truly seems to have too many biases for my taste. The collapse of Omidyar's 'Racket' (ironic name, no?) and Greenwald volunteering to speak at a Koch event, all leave me thinking my instincts about him were correct.

The world is not beating down doors with cries of 'Free Snowden!' And that's because most of us have better things to do than second-guess our intelligence agencies. As always, absent evidence to the contrary.

The evidence Snowden has provided is, at most, open to interpretation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

126. Lol! Now its degrees of changing one's mind?! Your shtick is old

How about this analogy? Millions of Americans cheered Shock and Awe as American bombs incinerated a million+ innocent Iraqis.

Now those same Americans have changed their minds about the Iraq war. Is this invalid? Not real?

Or do we embrace and encourage the fact that these Americans have changed their minds about the war even as they have gallons of Iraqi blood on their hands..

[randome]

138. It's not a schtick. It's an opinion, as is yours.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

352. Why the shrug? You have no confidence in your insult?

{Sigh} So unnecessary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[wildbilln864]

353. not an insult but an observation...

I apologize if you take it as such and will immediately self delete.

[cui bono]

96. You do realize that people can change their minds, right?

I mean I know a lot of people refuse to, no matter what facts they are presented, but usually that's not about all things. I would bet money that every single person on this planet has changed their mind at some point, especially when their eyes are opened to corruption they never realized existed before.

[randome]

100. And what corruption would that be, regarding Snowden's documents?

The metadata collection that we've known about for years? The collection that's been ruled legal many times?

The foreign communications monitoring which is, like, the NSA's primary job?

If Snowden disagreed with NSA policies -and he wasn't even an intelligence analyst so why he would think he was qualified to serve as judge for the rest of us I'll never understand- then he could have found another job or turned whistleblower.

Instead, he stole as much he could and gave it away to corporate media offices hoping against hope that they would be able to find a 'smoking gun' of some sort.

Well, they didn't. And if they by chance ever do, I will have no problem judging the practice on its merits, not on what S&G want me to believe.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

130. Have you read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide?

That will answer your questions.

He did not steal to give to corporate media. He gave back to the American people what we owned, what we bought and paid for, what was being used against us.

[randome]

136. You do not own national security documents. Sorry, but no country tolerates leakers.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

160. Funny how you refuse to use the term whisteblower. n/t

[randome]

164. Not so funny. There are specific procedures to follow for being a whistleblower.

Why didn't Snowden go to Senators Wyden or Udall? Probably because he didn't think they would see things his way. I really believe Snowden is so trapped inside his head, and unable to see things clearly, that he can't admit he did anything wrong.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

174. And as has been noted hundreds of times on this board and many times in documentaries

one's life can be ruined when taking that "procedural" route. Watch Greenwald's film about whistleblowers. Lives completely ruined because TPTB didn't want to hear the truth. With Obama's enormous increase is prosecuting whistleblowers do you really think that's a good route? It most clearly is not. At this point the only reason TPTB want whistleblowers to follow the proper procedures is to ensure that the information never becomes public.

[randome]

177. 'Enormous increase'? A total of 8 individuals have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act...

...under Obama. Eight. 8.
[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]

[cui bono]

182. It only took 5 prosecutions to make it more than all other presidents combined.

But 8 is a low number to you?

Obama's War on Whistle-Blowers
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2011/05/obamas-war-whistle-blowers/38106/

6 Brave Govt. Whistleblowers Charged Under the Espionage Act by Obama's Administration
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/6-brave-govt-whistleblowers-charged-under-espionage-act-obamas-administration

Obama's abuse of the Espionage Act is modern-day McCarthyism
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/06/obama-abuse-espionage-act-mccarthyism

Obama Whistleblower Prosecutions Lead To Chilling Effect On Press
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/obama-whistleblower-prosecutions-press_n_3091137.html

Why is he prosecuting any whistleblowers at all? How are we going to get people to reveal corruption they see if they are just going to be prosecuted for it so that the corruption/injustice they are trying to expose can continue? It's pretty clear that a message is being sent, and that message is just shut up and let us do what we want or we'll throw your ass in jail and ruin your life.

Honestly, why would anyone come forward using the "proper procedures" in this climate? Would you? Honestly.

There is a reason it's called whistleblowing.


Whistleblower: The NSA Is Lying–U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/12720

[JDPriestly]

201. The people own the naitonal security documents. Leaking to the people who own the documents

is not treason.

Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

By exposing the NSA, Snowden gave aid and comfort not to our enemies but to us, the American people.

[randome]

204. I never said Snowden is guilty of treason or is a traitor.

I just think he's an idiot.

And no, neither you nor I are entitled to do whatever we want with national security documents. That's the law. We have checks and balances. If you don't like those checks and balances, then work to change them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

308. "Checks and balances" refers to the system of government, not to any specific statute.

The people are the biggest check and balance, or should be. Too bad so many have abdicated that role in favor of unconditional loyalism. The difference between the treatment of Ellsberg by rank and file Democrats in his time and the treatment of Snowden by rank and file Democrats is telling.

[cui bono]

168. He was a whistleblower. Why are you so adamant that he is a criminal?

The Obama admin pushed to legalize what we all knew was illegal during BushCo admin when they were doing it. Now all of a sudden it's okay because it's Obama? Sorry, but my principles are more solid than that. As is my faith in the constitution. The dragnet spying is a violation of our rights. And before you claim that if a court finds it constitutional then it is, remember, it was SCOTUS that gave us Bush as president.

[randome]

176. Obama pushed the FISA Amendments Act to put greater restrictions on how data is handled.

Even Bob Woodward said it appeared to him that sufficient safeguards were in place.

So you're saying don't trust the courts because...well, just don't! The President can't be trusted. The courts can't be trusted. The SCOTUS can't be trusted. The NSA can't be trusted.

Sounds more like a 'Sovereign Citizens' kind of outlook to me.

Like everything else in America, if you don't like something, work to change it. Don't steal millions of documents, flee the country and then call yourself a whistleblower. There is nothing heroic about that except in the comic book story continually playing inside Snowden's head.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

178. Obama pushed to legalize the illegal warrantless wiretapping BushCo did.

I've found links for it many times for other DUers so you can find them if you google it or search my posts.

I'm not saying just don't trust the courts, I'm saying they are not always right. Or do you agree with SCOTUS installing our president rather than go by election results?

I do work to change things. And so did Snowden. He did a lot more than I and most likely you. The whole world is talking about it now. He started the conversation and revealed some startling actions of this admin regarding spying.

You don't like how he did it for some reason. I suspect I know the underlying reason, it's most likely the same reason as most DUers who attempt to swiftboat Snowden and GG. And it has nothing to do with the rule of law, constitutionality or upholding our civil liberties.

[Martin Eden]

325. Is there a difference between a "leaker" and a "whistleblower"?

The term "leaker" applies to a broad spectrum of surreptitious dissemination of information, often for nefarious motives.

In my book Snowden's motives and courage are to be applauded, and what he revealed is vitally important for the citizens of an ostensibly free democracy to know.

I suspect some DUers condemn Snowden because he was highly critical of Obama, who campaigned on curtailing the invasion of privacy by the national security state but vastly expanded it as president.

[Enthusiast]

317. +1

[treestar]

416. Why ever not?

Why is he above the law in the eyes of his admirers? Just insane. The government has to prove the case, too. it's not on him to prove anything.

Where he fled to if they decide to accuse him of anything, does he think the trial would be fairer?

[Scuba]

441. "Where he fled to if they decide to accuse him of anything, does he think the trial would be fairer?

That's in irrelevant ad hominum attack.

[one_voice]

14. See I have no problem giving credit where credit is due...

I will admit it's good.

But when I read 'suck it up Snowden haters' I have to wonder what makes you any better than a teabagger that tells me I'm not a 'real patriot' if I can't appreciate the freedoms that Chris Kyle provided for me.

We; at least; I'm capable of giving credit to the documentary while still being able to have mixed feelings--some not good--about Snowden & Greenwald. The fact that I'm told to suck it up on a Democratic board gives me pause.

I don't think much of Clint Eastwood--anymore---but still think Unforgiven was a fantastic film. Two thoughts, one brain. Imagine that.

[mountain grammy]

17. Well said, thank you.

[msanthrope]

20. It's a very good documentary. So was Triumph of the Will. Just as American Sniper is a well-made

movie.....

It is just as important to question the media as it is the government.

[Fumesucker]

214. Yes, like when the media is urging us to go to war...

Oh, wait...

[msanthrope]

269. Indeed...I've often wondered why the Left only challenges the motivations

of some of the media..but not all of the media...

[Fumesucker]

270. You know that liberal media, liberals just love it..

[msanthrope]

336. Well--certainly claiming that one is "Liberal" causes some on the Left to lose perspective.....

I mean....let's take a look at some of the media sources that some DUers think are gospel---state run media from Russian and Iran, the Black Agenda Report, anything from Common Dreams, Truthout....

These sources are posted, breathlessly, without any vetting, and are taken as credulous, merely because they come from the "Left." You see it time and time again....

[Fumesucker]

346. Generallly I watch who attacks the content and who attacks the source

For some reason there's usually less of the former and more of the latter.

My own credo is that everyone has an agenda and that there is no such thing as accurate information only varying degrees of inaccuracy.

[msanthrope]

359. And there, you've illustrated the problem, perfectly. You seem to

accept, without discernment, that one MUST address the 'content' offered by all sources.

You say that you accept that all sources have an agenda.....well, I put to you that some sources are so repugnant in their agenda that their content is beneath contempt.

And when that happens...I refuse to address content.

[Fumesucker]

360. "some sources are so repugnant in their agenda that their content is beneath contempt."

Indeed, well stated.

I probably have an even wider view of which agendas are repugnant than you.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

377. I believe you meant credible, not credulous.

And by the same token, we have our share of DUers who will believe anything the government tells them, whether it comes from NSA, the White House, CIA, DHS, whomever.

[msanthrope]

379. I'll let my autocorrect know you object to its grammar. It will be hurt.....but I give you this....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

381. It completely changes the meaning of the word.

Be butthurt if you feel the need, but this isn't a misplaced apostrophe or a simple misspelling.

[msanthrope]

387. I'm sure it does, and I'm delighted that you took the time and effort to monitor my posts to

make sure that I am using the proper vocabulary.

Rather than being "butthurt," I'm flattered.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

391. Have a nice day.

[msanthrope]

395. You, too!!! I'll be posting a few more things today, perhaps you can monitor them for me

for content and form?

I'd appreciate it!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

400. Good heavens. I think you're suggesting that we discuss things on a discussion board.

I'm all in, msanthrope. All in.

[Fred Drum]

255. Triumph of the Will was a flop

even the german public didn't buy it

but you're saying it was a very good documentary

really, what parts?

[joshcryer]

262. It was one of the three most profitable films that year...

...in Germany. And it wasn't promoted much outside of Germany. I don't know if I would say Triumph of the Will was "good" but Leni Riefenstahl's techniques in Triumph of the Will were absolutely revolutionary for the time and are still used to this day. As a film, as a product, it was absolutely "great." Battleship Potemkin is another film in that vein, and is considered by some to be one of the greatest films of all time, yet it was filled with fabrications.

[msanthrope]

268. Yes.....like Birth of a Nation, and American Sniper, it is a brilliant film....it serves

it's purpose of propaganda, exactly as Susan Sontag wrote of, decades ago.

Do you disagree with Sontag regarding Leni? How?

[reorg]

294. except that Sontag said the exact opposite

and never claimed, like you did, that Triumph of the Will was 'a very good documentary'.

That was only the sorry excuse by Riefenstahl herself, which you are echoing here.

[msanthrope]

340. It is an excellent documentary, which is the point of what Sontag said. That it cannot be

separated from its utterly disgusting, propagandistic, and immoral purpose is part of the moral conundrum we are faced with.

That Art can be both beautiful and used for evil--like Riefenstahl did...is a moral quandary.

[reorg]

479. actually, it isn't even a documentary at all

BECAUSE it cannot be separated from it's propagandistic purpose and METHOD.

As to why a NSDAP commercial may appear to be 'beautiful' or 'excellent' to some people, let's hear what Sontag had to say:

Riefenstahl’s current de-Nazification and vindication as indomitable priestess of the beautiful (...) do not augur well for the keenness of current abilities to detect the fascist longings in our midst. The force of her work is precisely in the continuity of its political and aesthetic ideas. What is interesting is that this was once seen so much more clearly than it seems to be now.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1975/feb/06/fascinating-fascism/

[MADem]

302. It's "one of the greatest films in history." Propaganda, but a great film, technically speaking.

The "good ideas" re: how that film was constructed are still used today. And apparently, it was very popular in Germany way back when, though it's banned today owing to the Nazi imagery. So you're mistaken--it was not a "flop," it was quite popular and quite profitable within Germany, certainly.

That doesn't mean that people who find the film quite artful "approve" of the ideas expressed in the film. But it is a visually stunning piece:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Will

Triumph of the Will was released in 1935 and became a prominent example of propaganda in film history. Riefenstahl's techniques—such as moving cameras, aerial photography, the use of long focus lenses to create a distorted perspective, and the revolutionary approach to the use of music and cinematography—have earned Triumph of the Will recognition as one of the greatest films in history. Riefenstahl helped to stage the scenes, directing and rehearsing some of them at least fifty times. Riefenstahl won several awards, not only in Germany but also in the United States, France, Sweden, and other countries. The film was popular in the Third Reich, and has continued to influence movies, documentaries, and commercials to this day.[2] However, it is banned from showing in Germany owing to its support for Nazism and its numerous portrayals of the swastika....

Frank Capra's seven-film series Why We Fight is said to have been directly inspired by, and the United States' response to, Triumph of the Will.[citation needed]

...Triumph of the Will premiered on 28 March 1935 at the Berlin Ufa Palace Theater and was an instant success. Within two months the film had earned 815,000 Reichsmark, and Ufa considered it one of the three most profitable films of that year. ... For her efforts, Riefenstahl was rewarded with the German Film Prize (Deutscher Filmpreis), a gold medal at the 1935 Venice Biennale, and the Grand Prix at the 1937 World Exhibition in Paris. ...[10]

[merrily]

309. Triumph of the Will was a Nazi government commissioned propaganda film not a documentary.

Nice try.

[msanthrope]

331. Indeed....but all documentaries are propaganda. nt

[merrily]

472. Maybe, but Triumph of the Will is not comparable to a privately made documentary.

[reorg]

481. what utter bull

Interesting to see how far you are willing to go just to get a stinky little Nazi slur in at the critics of the surveillance state.

If you want to make the point that Poitras film is propagandistic, make it. But I guess you'd need to watch it first instead of preemptively comparing it to Nazi commercials.

[randome]

21. Yes. Well said.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[99th_Monkey]

22. OK, maybe it was a bit snarky, I'll admit that.

I keep that in check most of the time, but in this case, it slipped out that way; mostly
because it's incomprehensible to me that people who identify as "Democrats" hate-on
whistle-blowers and want them jailed or worse.

Sorry if you were offended or put off by it.

[msanthrope]

31. Because we don't accept that people are "whistleblowers" just because they say they are. nt

[99th_Monkey]

42. The whole freaking world "knows" Snowden is a whistle-blower

Thanks to the likes of Daniel Elsberg, who is in a position to know; and now thanks
to this new documentary that just won an Oscar. The fact that the NSA, CIA (and
sadly Obama) try to denigrate Snowden does not change what most everyone else
can plainly see on its face: Snowden is a legitimate whistle-blower who needs to be
exonerated and celebrated, not jailed.

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/daniel-ellsberg

[msanthrope]

51. Um, no--the "whole freakin' world" does not. Which is why Comrade Eddie is too scared to face

a jury. Which is why he lets a movie speak for him...rather than Justice.

Which is why he fled to China, then Russia.

Which is why he says absolutely nothing about GLBT rights in Russia.

Which is why NPH had no problem joking about him.

Chelsea Manning had the guts to face trial. That, at least, I can respect.

[JEB]

67. I don't care if he fled to Mars,

The ugliness he revealed is of most concern to me. This is my country and I thought we were better.

[msanthrope]

73. You never want to see sausage made, then....nt

[JEB]

75. Is that a snarky way of defending spying

on law abiding citizens?

[msanthrope]

90. Illegal surveillance isn't something I support. I just don't get too bothered

by what isn't illegal.

[Caretha]

326. Did you really say

"Comrade Eddie"?

Why yes, yes you did.

Okay Grannie, the Cold War is over....we have moved on from the '60's, and by the way, it's the 21st century now.

Pssst....there are No Reds under your bed.

One question...

You said: Chelsea Manning had the guts to face trial. That, at least, I can respect.

Do you respect Chelsea Manning for "whistle-blowing"?

[Puglover]

328. Careful Caretha.

Next you'll be "asked" if you post over at "The Cave". Whatever shithole that might be.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

[msanthrope]

335. "Grannie?" Why is that term an insult to you? Yes--Comrade Eddie. Guess who I call "James Blond?"

Chelsea Manning admitted that she was not a whistleblower in her allocution. So I take her at her word, and hope she is able to secure a reduced sentence.

[one_voice]

36. We all get snarky...

Lord knows I've done it. No biggie. We're not going to agree all the time, that's what makes us Democrats. LOL!

It's a good documentary--I would just hate to see that get lost in all the Greenwald/Snowden disagreements.

[DonViejo]

37. Hit the edit button and change it. Until you do, the snark is going to be a distraction.

[99th_Monkey]

47. Since many of the replies have referred to that, I'm not changing it.

I'm "owning my snark" this time around.

[elias49]

94. Good. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. then you DO think that the Oscar vindicated Snowden?

[99th_Monkey]

179. The Oscar certainly doesn't hurt

the cause of transparency and holding gov't accountable for presuming to operate "above the law" in violation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. <-- remember them?

[MADem]

32. Bingo. Game-set-match!

Nicely articulated.

I love a bit of nuanced discussion!

[randome]

40. Same for Eastwood here, too. And Ray Bradbury.

Nothing can take away the finest accomplishments of both despite their whack-a-doodle politics.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[one_voice]

48. Exactly...

It's like when you understand why someone may have done something, but don't agree with what they did. You can do both, see/understand the 'why', but not agree or condone.

[bahrbearian]

52. "The fact that I'm told to suck it up on a Democratic board gives me pause."

So you admit you are a Snowden Hater.

[one_voice]

72. So you admit you are a Snowden Hater.

I did? Where?

What I said:

We; at least; I'm capable of giving credit to the documentary while still being able to have mixed feelings--some not good--about Snowden & Greenwald. The fact that I'm told to suck it up on a Democratic board gives me pause.

[revmclaren]

80. Whatever happened to 'it's not the person, it's the message'?

I haven't seen ( nor have any desire to see ) Citizenfour...and it may well have earned its academy award. But because one wins an award or is the subject of a movie that wins an award does not make them a good or respected 'person'. I enjoyed The Pianist....which won three Oscar's in 2003, but the director... Roman Polanski who was convicted of raping a 13 year old in 1977... No respect at all. Well needless to say , he didn't accept it in person either. He is still on the run for almost 40 years now. Wonderful life ( ).

I'm sure I'll take heat for pointing this out but, what the hell.....

[cui bono]

112. Do you also agree that the swiftboating of GG is no better than teabaggers? n/t

[one_voice]

166. Since you're asking me a question that has nothing..

to do with what I posted and more to do with how you feel about Greenwald; let me ask you--do you think you could have a little hero worship going on here? Kinda like the teabaggers do with Chris Kyle.

You do seem very invested.

Frankly, I don't give much thought to Greenwald so I really don't know what you're talking about. What I do know of him, what I've seen, he seems to be a bit of an asshole; self absorbed. Then again most people that become 'famous' tend to be that way.

[treestar]

118. Exactly.

The film is not politics. It coul have been possible to make a good film about the "authoritarians" so the whole thing is illogical anyway

[VanillaRhapsody]

163. Perfect Response!

To the point!

[randome]

23. I prefer the term 'Snowden mocker'.

Snowden claimed that armed with an email address, he could personally spy on anyone, including the President. 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 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 and even the Wikileaks attorneys don't want him. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002310173
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[grasswire]

30. get a new schtick.

Fail.

[randome]

35. I know, Snowden has so failed to live up to the hype I posted, right?

I wish I could get a new schtick but the current one addresses the problems of Snowden. That and the fact that he will never be the superhero he dreamed of being.

What, is it going on 3 years now? How time flies...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[LeftOfWest]

55. Thank you.

[99th_Monkey]

34. At this point, unlike the NSA, Snowden certainly has little or no reason to lie about any of this,

That the voluminous evidence that has come forth does not meet your
criteria is no surprise to me, as you are clearly biased against whistle-blowers
and want them jailed or worse.

[randome]

38. Whistle blowers? No. Leakers? Well, I say laws and statutes should address that.

Dumping millions of national security documents to corporate media organizations does not equal a whistle blower, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[cascadiance]

44. Hmm... Is Twitter suing the NSA if the claim that the NSA had access to their data is "bullshit"?

http://news.yahoo.com/twitter-sues-fbi-doj-release-nsa-request-175950330--finance.html

[randome]

50. That's not about 'secret' or 'direct' access.

It's about the number of warrants (public, in the open) issued by the intelligence agencies. And has nothing to do with the documents Snowden gave away.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[cascadiance]

60. Umm.. Twitter is suing because they are not ALLOWED (Aka NOT "public") to talk about...

... these "warrants" for their data. In other words, WE DON'T KNOW because the government isn't letting us know how much they are spying on private data on third party servers. And companies don't like not being able to say that their customers' data is "protected" from spying when they aren't allowed to say anything about whether it is or not.

Do we know if all of the data they are getting have been retrieved through warrants or not? If we don't know when or under what conditions these warrants are issued and when they aren't for access to data, then we don't know. And technically, they can't claim "bullshit" as that would basically be lying to the public about whether the government is or not looking at customer data, which they are prevented from commenting on.

[randome]

65. Do you EVER know if a warrant is legitimate or not?

Do you, personally, need to review every warrant that is requested? The FISC court was established just to provide the kind of oversight that Bush disdained. It may not be the best system in the world but it's better than it used to be.

And if Snowden thinks otherwise, he needs to prove it, not keep making statements from Russia about how Obama is afraid of us.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[cascadiance]

84. If you're speaking of the FISA court, guess who nominated ALL of the justices on that court?

JOHN ROBERTS!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/politics/robertss-picks-reshaping-secret-surveillance-court.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents.

WASHINGTON — The recent leaks about government spying programs have focused attention on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its role in deciding how intrusive the government can be in the name of national security. Less mentioned has been the person who has been quietly reshaping the secret court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

In making assignments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts, more than his predecessors, has chosen judges with conservative and executive branch backgrounds that critics say make the court more likely to defer to government arguments that domestic spying programs are necessary.

Ten of the court’s 11 judges — all assigned by Chief Justice Roberts — were appointed to the bench by Republican presidents; six once worked for the federal government. Since the chief justice began making assignments in 2005, 86 percent of his choices have been Republican appointees, and 50 percent have been former executive branch officials.

Though the two previous chief justices, Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, were conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts, their assignments to the surveillance court were more ideologically diverse, according to an analysis by The New York Times of a list of every judge who has served on the court since it was established in 1978.
...

And even one of the few judges that hung on from Clinton times who formerly presided over the court, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, just happened to join the court in 2002 right after she threw out the only anti-trust ruling that was made during the Clinton administration against Microsoft, right before the midterms, that helped a lot of Republicans then.

[randome]

87. Yeah, I know all about that. It's all one gigantic conspiracy...

...that Snowden failed to find evidence for. Chief Justice Roberts, the bastard who voted to retain Obamacare. He's definitely not my idea of the kind of justice we need at the Supreme Court but insinuations that he's deliberately helping the NSA spy on everyone is crazy without some kind of evidence to support it.

Evidence. It's what we all thrive on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[cascadiance]

98. Because those who DO have evidence to support it have to leave the country...

... to avoid being crucified by our kangaroo court system...

Just ask John Kiriakou, who's the only entity, the WHISTLEBLOWER, to go to jail over the torture war crimes that both Bush and Obama administrations had happening under their administrations, or had at least covered up under their administrations when "looking forward"...

Those like Sibel Edmonds, who as a whistleblower, challenged the system to take her to court to testify about wrongdoings by our government, had her cases thrown out TWICE using "state secrets privilege" by Reggie Walton who was TWICE "randomly selected" to be the judge on her cases, and of course later on was selected by John Roberts to head up our FISA Court coincidentally!

HMMMM!!!!!!!!

[msanthrope]

338. John Kiriakou defended waterboarding, and Sibel Edmonds thinks Greenwald is a piece of crap---a

checkbook journalist.

Your examples rather do not prove your point.

[cascadiance]

366. So... You are saying that Kiriako defended waterboarding more than others and

... that that was why he went to prison and others didn't who also supported waterboarding and ordered taped evidence of waterboarding be destroyed were "less guilty" than him and that justice was even handed and whistleblowers weren't singled out for prosecution?

You live in a world of delusion dude. Either conveniently and complicitly or very ignorantly. John Kiriakou wasn't put in prison for his earlier positions supporting waterboarding, but for later explaining why he had second thoughts on what was going on with that and how the whole process was messed up. He was imprisoned for being a whistleblower, which our justice system punishes more than it does those that break many other laws and get away with it.

My point wasn't what Sibel Edmonds and Glen Greenwald felt about each other. My point was that the FISA court has been a joke in terms of providing any kind of real check on the NSA and other parts of the intelligence establishment following any kind of reasonable set of rules of protecting most innocent Americans from having their 4th amendment rights violated.

Whistleblowers have been abused lately, especially those in the intelligence industry, which many bills that have gone through congress that have sought to protect whistleblowers make exceptions for when they protect other whistleblowers, but not security establishment whistleblowers.

[bvar22]

102. In the thousands of requests for secret Warrants from FISA,

do you know if FISA turned down ANY?

[randome]

119. We've been down this road before.

Prosecutors rarely request a warrant unless they are damned sure it will be granted. Otherwise, the prosecutor starts to look incompetent to the court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while just four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few if any were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, with an additional seven being rejected. In all, over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court has granted 33,942 warrants, with only 11 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

120. You're not going to claim that 33,000 warrants means the NSA is spying on the world, are you?

Are you saying the NSA doesn't use warrants? Then why bring the subject up? I don't see any upside to questioning the number of warrants.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

142. THanks for answering my question.

The answer is NO! in the multi thousand requests for secret Warrants from FISA,
exactly ZERO have been turned down.

Sounds like a Rubber Stamp court, doesn't it.

Your failed attempt to change the subject is noted.

[randome]

146. 33,000 warrants out of 300,000,000 citizens.

So it sounds like you're saying that the NSA abides by the law by going through the court system. You may think too great a percentage of those warrants are approved but as I pointed out, that's normal.

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

[cui bono]

187. Not exactly since Obama pushed to legalize what was illegal under BushCo.

Just because he got them to make it legal doesn't make it okay or constitutional. We hated it under BushCo and I, for one, still hate it under Obama. Unfortunately, for far too many people it's okay if Obama does it, even if it wasn't when Bush did it.

[randome]

196. Well, I never weighed in on anything the NSA was doing before Snowden.

To me, a spy agency that spies is doing its job absent evidence to the contrary. I, personally, couldn't care less about the metadata collection since there is no evidence it is being wrongly used.

(Other than that whole Love-Int scandal, which occurs to every law enforcement agency from time to time and was detected, admitted to and stopped by the NSA itself.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

200. And then when that evidence is presented you are prepared to throw the whistleblower in jail?

How are you ever going to get the evidence then since you want them to go through "proper channels" and we all know what that gets you.

You can see that's just a catch-22, right?

[randome]

215. I will always support whistleblowers. But not self-described heroic leakers.

The vast majority of Snowden's 'revelations' have been about monitoring foreign intelligence. That's the NSA's primary function.

If you don't think we need foreign intelligence, that's a valid point of view, IMO, but your viewpoint does not entitle you to decide for me or anyone else whether something is Constitutional or not.

I think the problem is that too many bored individuals doing the dry work of intelligence gathering come to think of themselves as superheroes and opt for the spotlight.

Snowden does a good job of coming across as self-deprecating. I don't think it's an act, he truly believes he is 'saving' us from ourselves.

I disagree that he is doing that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

53. NSA admitted to "downloading the internet."

Don't need to take Snowden's word for it.

[randome]

57. If you're talking about Bush's AT&T operation, that was not the entire Internet.

And if Snowden was referring to something a decade ago...um,
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

128. Yeah, it's all public plaintext.

Double quotes, obviously downloading the entire internet wouldn't be feasible, but all plaintext is trivial for government resources.

[DesMoinesDem]

56. It's only Powerpoint slides! They don't prove anything!

Snowden has proven to be right. You have made a fool of yourself.

[randome]

61. A fool is someone who hands millions of documents over to corporate media offices...

...runs to Russia then claims to be a whistle blower.

Snowden and Greenwald thought those Powerpoint slides about PRISM meant the NSA was copying the entire Internet, when all it turned out to be was a secure FTP server.

Now that was foolish. And that was what they led with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[DesMoinesDem]

66. You still don't have any grasp of what was on those 'fake' slides.

He doesn't know what secure FTP is! He abandoned his fiancee! You were always good for a laugh. Some of the dumbest stuff I ever read.

[randome]

68. They weren't fake slides. S&G simply misinterpreted them.

Same as Greenwald 'misinterpreted' Pierre Omidyar's multi-million dollar 'racket'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[DesMoinesDem]

74. According to you powerpoint slides weren't evidence of anything.

If they're not evidence of anything, then you must have believed them to be fake. Maybe they just weren't up to your standards. You need more than NSA created documents. You need video of someone using the programs in the documents and then the communications from those programs. And maybe then you might believe it. Well probably not, but you want it anyway! LOL.

[randome]

79. I never said they were evidence of nothing. They were clearly 'evidence' of PRISM.

Which is a secure FTP server, not some 'magic ball' to 'watch our thoughts form as we type', as S&G wanted to believe.

They didn't even think to ask themselves the most basic of investigative and responsible journalism questions: "Who else can verify this?"

The most sensible thing to do would be to find out if Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, everyone else was involved in helping the NSA spy on the world. But they didn't do even that small measure of questioning themselves.

That's why it has been a farce from day one. Neither Snowden nor Greenwald can't step outside themselves to see things from a different perspective.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[DesMoinesDem]

134. I remember clearly how you would go on and on about how they were only powerpoint slides.

It was one of the dumbest arguments being made at the time. It always made me laugh at how stupid it was. And then how you acted like you know more about what was going on at the NSA than Snowden. I see you're still doing it. LOL.

[randome]

139. I hadn't thought about the NSA for probably years before Snowden.

I know nothing personally about the agency. But after every software company in this country said that is not what PRISM does, that was enough for this uninformed observer to conclude that S&G didn't know what they were talking about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Marr]

97. This schtick is only getting more pathetic.

Give it up, seriously.

[Helen Borg]

25. Well said it 99th! :)

[joshcryer]

49. Let me know when the laws are repealed.

And officials go to jail (Gonzalez comes to mind).

Until then I will view it as it is, a spectacle to distract from the issue. In a thread where we should be discussing NSA spying all we are talking about are personalities.

Mind you, by merely mentioning personalities, I am contributing to the problem. And that's how it works.

[merrily]

310. Actually,, it's a thread about an Oscar winning documentary

on which almost no one is discussing the documentary or the Oscar.

On the bright side, you can always start a thread about NSA spying, if that is what you actually want to discuss.

[joshcryer]

312. How does that disagree with what I've said?

How on earth does an Oscar win actually help change the legislation of the Patriot Act and FISA? Please, I'd be comforted to know how this changes anything.

Noam Chomsky noted how the media manufactures consent, I fail to see how this is anything but that. People will watch a movie. People will watch it. People won't care. You're in the bubble. This is DU. Gonzalez won't be arrested for his crimes under Bush.

I've started NSA threads before, I've posted about NSA spying before, I get at most a few responses. Because in the end, even on DU, no one genuinely cares. Udall lost in my home state of Colorado because he was against NSA spying. People on DU shit talked "Third Way" Democrats. Udall was a Third Way Democrat. But no one gave a shit when he lost and I sweat blood and tears. Literally. (I got nosebleeds from that shit.)

[merrily]

474. What I disagreed with is obvious to anyone who can read and cares to see it.

[DeSwiss]

59. K&R

[center]



[/center]

[BeyondGeography]

70. Suck it up, America haters, while you're at it

I wonder how filmmakers in Russia would be treated under similar circumstances. Here you get the highest artistic honor, a nice big party and nobody gets hurt. A lovely entry on the resume and higher earnings potential. Cheers.

[cui bono]

89. Who are the "America haters"? n/t

[BeyondGeography]

116. Are you saying a fair portion of this board doesn't think we are the most vile,

destructive force on earth?

[cui bono]

154. I asked a question, I never made any statement. Care to answer? n/t

[Marr]

93. Wow, welcome to 2003.

Don't like lawless, authoritarian government? Yer a 'Murka-hater!

[Mnpaul]

125. You are either with us or you are with the terrorists

Bushisms on DU - yuk

[LittleBlue]

123. What does that have to do with us being spied upon?

Go start a freedom of speech for Russians petition. I care more about why our government is spying on us.

[KG]

127. ' America haters'

[joshcryer]

188. They get jailed, video confiscated, and deported.

[Marr]

92. When someone can be widely applauded *and* called a "traitor"...

...it says something about your government. Or at the very least, how that government is perceived.

It's no coincidence that the prominent Snowden haters on DU are also the biggest sycophants of the administration.

[BeyondGeography]

140. Both views are tolerated

And this film and the accompanying award says artistic freedom is not only tolerated but encouraged as well, which is a good thing.

It's not always about Obama.

[99th_Monkey]

185. I agree with you

The USA does still have a few mediums of expression & free speech left,
film-making being one of them.

This however does not justify spying on the citizenry or jailing whistle-blowers.

[Marr]

186. Uh, the film is *about* an American whistleblower who is currently hiding from his own government

in Russia. The fact that they made a documentary about him is hardly a ringing endorsement of our freedom.

As far as Obama goes, I've noticed that here on DU, the crew that regularly smears Snowden and other whistleblowers are almost exactly the same crew that most aggressively defend the Obama Administration, no matter what.

[BeyondGeography]

347. Who fled to Russia, where you can get killed for making films like Citizenfour

Some ironies are worth noting, don't you think? They might even make you feel a little better about where you live.

[Marr]

361. What a sad rationalization. If someone punches you in the gut,

do you thank them for not punching you in the face?

[JDPriestly]

101. K&R.

[Android3.14]

131. I had to chuckle

as I imagined the freedom hating fascist embracing angry sheepheads try to spin this into their pointy little heads.

It is a character flaw in myself that I found that so satisfying, but not near the extreme character flaws in those who demonized Snowden.

[woo me with science]

143. K&R Thank you, Edward Snowden.

[Tarheel_Dem]

145. It's not DU's "haters" he has to worry about.

Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks haven’t badly tarnished US image, poll finds

WASHINGTON (AP) — Widespread global opposition to US electronic surveillance since the revelations by onetime National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden has not badly tarnished the overall image of the United States, and it remains far more popular around the world than rising power China, according to a poll released Monday.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center of nearly 50,000 respondents in 44 countries also found that despite low public approval ratings at home, President Barack Obama is still largely popular around the world. A median 56 percent across those nations said they have confidence that Obama will do the right thing in world affairs — an approval rating little changed from last year.

Overall, a median of 65 percent expressed a positive opinion of the US, although the rating was just 30 percent in the Middle East. Among 35 countries around the world that were surveyed both in 2014 and 2013, the US rating was unchanged at 62 percent. There was no direct comparison available covering all the countries covered in the survey.

America’s reputation for protecting individual liberties has been damaged in the year since Snowden began sharing with the public documents on US interception of communications. Yet, the US still ranks far higher on that count than China and Russia, and by a narrow margin, France.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/07/14/edward-snowden-nsa-leaks-haven-badly-tarnished-image-poll-finds/edCqQSc3iVxsn1VrcuzNiI/story.html

HUFFPOLLSTER: Americans Want Snowden To Stand Trial, But Are Glad Secrets Were Revealed

MOST WANT SNOWDEN TO STAND TRIAL - CBS News: "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 Snowden’s 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...Americans have become more skeptical in the last few months about the need for the government to collect the phone records of Americans in order to help find terrorists. Now public opinion is divided: 47 percent think this is necessary, while 48 percent think it is not. Last July, a slight majority thought it was necessary."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/edward-snowden-poll_n_4654766.html

If the goal was to help his pal Pooty Poot, I'd call it an epic fail.

[grasswire]

189. there it is...

......"Americans have become more skeptical in the last few months about the need for the government to collect the phone records of Americans in order to help find terrorists. Now public opinion is divided: 47 percent think this is necessary, while 48 percent think it is not. Last July, a slight majority thought it was necessary."

Trending toward more concern about the surveillance state. Thank you, Ed Snowden.

[cui bono]

205. "If the goal was to help his pal Pooty Poot..."

Wow.

[Cha]

266. Awwww.. poor Snowden.. he's trying his damnedest to spread USA hate.. not sure if ol Putin is egging

him on or he just wants to get ol Ron Paul's("dreamy&quot boy, Rand Paul elected.. fucking libertarian bullshit.

Edward Snowden: "Yet even in the face of this historically disproportionate aggression, countries around the world have offered support and asylum. These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations carried out by the powerful rather than the powerless. By refusing to compromise their principles in the face of intimidation, they have earned the respect of the world. It is my intention to travel to each of these countries to extend my personal thanks to their people and leaders."

According to ol Eddie.. Russia Good/USA Bad.. ******* tool.

Tarheel

[Tarheel_Dem]

388. Still can't believe he said that. I agree with Bill Maher, "he's stupid" & he has "machismo".

[markpkessinger]

161. I found Harris's joke to be in incredibly poor taste . . .

I don't find accusations of 'treason' -- which have been irresponsibly hurled at Snowden -- to be a laughing matter.

[malokvale77]

183. ^^^ this ^^^

That accusation should be aimed at the NSA and all the elected officials who allow it's existence.

[99th_Monkey]

194. +100 good one. nt

[cui bono]

207. And the apologists who accept it without questioning. n/t

[malokvale77]

216. And worse, defend it. (nt)

[cstanleytech]

226. You might want to look up the definition of treason then as none of those parties mentioned

have committed treason.

[malokvale77]

233. As far as I am concerned...

Anyone who circumvents our constitutional rights is committing treason.

[cstanleytech]

237. Your concerns are immaterial to what the law says is treason and

none of those parties including Snowden appear to be guilty of treason.

[malokvale77]

242. I agree on the Snowden part.

I'm not so clear as to the NSA. Does anyone have a clear idea as to what they actually do?

[cstanleytech]

245. Try wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

[malokvale77]

247. So wiki is the decider.

Good to know.

Hey you made me laugh. I don't do that much lately.

[cstanleytech]

250. Nope its just information. Its up to you to decide if you

want to believe its information.

[markpkessinger]

238. Agreed, although I should add . . .

. . . that I don't necessarily hold this against Harris, as I am sure he was only delivering the material the show's writers created for him.

[malokvale77]

243. Yes

I wasn't dumping on him. I actually like him. Work is work, right?

[malokvale77]

180. K & R

Thank you. You pissed off all the 'right' people.

It's outrage time.

[Zorra]

184. heehee, way to piss off the MIC lovin' authoritarian corporatists!!!

I haven't seen so many desperate, ludicrous replies to an OP since Graham4Anything's second zombie got tombstoned.

[Blue_Tires]

190. Credit to 99th_Monkey for getting the fish to bite...

(myself included)...

It is fascinating to see such a vivid discussion from so many names that never dare venture near my threads, when I ask my usual uncomfortable questions, or post some not-so-pleasant news about our intrepid, world famous heroes....

Just making a mental note....

[malokvale77]

213. Aww

Do we need a kiss on the booboo?

Mental note ... try to respond to Blue_Tires usual uncomfortable questions, and/or not-so-pleasant news about our intrepid, world famous heroes (whoever they may be).

I'll be looking for those.

Oh, thanks for kicking 99th_Monkey's thread.

[Blue_Tires]

298. Oh, by all means smart guy

if you're so eager to answer some of them (and even the most fanatical Dudebro Snowdenistas on this site have yet to do so) just do a search and get back to me, whoever the hell you are...(I haven't seen you in one of my threads yet, so I don't know where you've been hanging out on DU the past couple of years...)

No need to thank me for the kick -- I'm more than happy to kick every Snow-Wald thread I can (both opposition threads and my own)...I give less than a flying fuck if all of LBN-GR-GD is all Snow-Wald, all the time -- Gives me the unique opportunity to attack in any direction...

[malokvale77]

299. OK, good for you. (nt)

[Blue_Tires]

300. A shame...

I was thirsting for a new challenger...

On this issue I'm outnumbered 100-to-1 on DU, and folks *still* don't want to fuck with me...So all I can do is bide my time and wait for my moment...

[bvar22]

492. That is not why people avoid your threads.

They avoid your threads because they are poorly written,
boring, and many have you on "Ignore", which is where i usually put you for the above reasons.
I recently cleaned out my "Ignore".
That was a mistake.

Your post was funny.
Waaaaa! People avoid my threads because I'm so smart! Waaaaa

[WillyT]

218. Look At All The Authoritarins In This Thread... And Some Say... They Pratcice Law...

I think they need more practice.



& Rec !!!

[randome]

222. I'd sooner trust any DUer who demonstrates a knowledge of the law...

...than a technical analyst who steals as much as he can and flees the country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

225. What About A Knowledge Of Justice, And The Constitution ???

Or... is that "just a piece of paper" as GW was purported to have said???

Which side you on, man ???

[randome]

313. So Snowden is a Constitutional scholar now? I wasn't aware of that.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

421. has the law Eddie would be charged under been

to court and found unconstitutional? No. And that can be one of his defenses, too. Gee, what a terrible land the USA is. Imagine that. He can even challenge the law he is convicted under.

"Unconstitutional" is decides by the judiciary. Not random individuals. That would be rule of men. You don't get to just decide for the rest of us, which is a good thing, as that would be a dictatorship of you.

Who is on the side of the constitution? Those who think its procedures should be used to make judicial rulings, or those who think it should go by the gut feelings of a particular journalist?

[treestar]

420. Er, most cases have two sides?

You require agreement with certain non lawyers on political points to not be an "authoritarian?"

Who looked up the statutes Comrade Eddie allegedly violated and informed you the penalty was at most 10 years or some fine and not death?

If Comrade Eddie were to go to trial, the prosecutor is thus more ignorant of that law than his defense counsel, just because the prosecutor took the "wrong" side?

You expect the entire bar to agree Eddie should be above the law? That's a thing you're not going to get from lawyers.

[Maedhros]

228. It's entirely acceptable to dislike Snowden, the person.

But if one believes in liberal values, one cannot deny that what Snowden did was good for democracy.

One can try to deny it, but doing so just makes one appear disingenuous.

[whereisjustice]

232. There are those who would have us believe Michael Moore, Greenwald and other investigative

journalists are traitors.

So we get rid of Moore and Greenwald and all those devoting their lives to exposing injustice and corruption - who's left to challenge the government and fight for justice?

Right.

Don't be taken in.

NSA and CIA have become a GIANT stain on the legacy of Obama and the Democratic Party.

And of course, the Bill of Rights.

That's the inconvenient truth that the security concern trolls don't want you to discuss.

Snowden embarrassed Obama.

Only the most shallow intellect would be swayed by idiotic assertions and manufactured outrage that he is a traitor.

Understand that CIA and NSA helped create ISIS.

And, now, of course, only CIA and NSA can save us from them.

Seriously - how fucked up is that?

[99th_Monkey]

234. Well said

[whereisjustice]

235. Those who hate investigative journalists are more comfortable with GE and Monsanto

reporting the news.

[Progressive dog]

251. An award for entertainment,

given by entertainers. LOL

[99th_Monkey]

257. Documentaries are generally much more than 'intertainment'

but your dismissive denigration of 'inconvenient' truths is duly noted.

[Progressive dog]

263. The award is for entertainment, and that is probably

an inconvenient truth to Snowden- Greenwald worshipers.

[Progressive dog]

484. Are you really claiming that just because

Snowden claims it, it is true?
He can always come home and convince a jury of his peers that he is a patriotic whistle blower. Of course, if he prefers to stay in Russia, the patriot claim will be pretty well dis-proven.

[99th_Monkey]

489. Chelsea Manning

We all saw how that went down... years of torture ... military kangaroo court ...

Danial Ellsberg agrees, there is no justice for whistle-blowers in America anymore.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

457. "Black Fox: The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler," "Anne Frank Remembered,"...

"The Eleanor Roosevelt Story," "King: A Filmed Record... Montgomery To Memphis," "Malcolm X," "Scared Straight!," "Genocide," "The Times of Harvey Milk."

Your attempt to diminish this film category is *adorable.* Educate yourself.

[Progressive dog]

482. I didn't say it wasn't a good film

You just proved my point, Oscars are for entertainment value.

[ReRe]

287. K&R

Thanks for the NewYorker article by Amy Davidson. I did get to watch the Documentary on HBO last night. For anyone who missed it, it's running again at 5am EDT this morning (2-24-15).

[99th_Monkey]

293. Sadly, I don't have HBO

only Showtime, but I totally am going to see it soon on big screen.

Thanks for the info tho.

[ReRe]

419. Dayam :-(

I was more impressed with it than I thought I would be. LP, et al, did an Oscar-worthy job on this documentary.

[Skittles]

296. AKA "SWOONERS"

[snot]

303. Thank you, Snowden and all who've helped get his messages out.

Snowden is a whistleblower, and whatever crimes you creatively impute to him, he's risked everything to reveal crimes by others that we should all be much more concerned about.

[merrily]

311. There's only one reason why a film should win an Oscar for best documentary and that is that

the film was the best in its category. However, Academy voters, like all voters, are human. If they hated what Snowden did, they probably would not have voted for the film. JMO.

[B Calm]

320. yawn

[LynneSin]

330. Wait, I can't be proud that Greenwald won and still have a dislike for Snowden

I hope your head line was not geared for other DUers?

[marmar]

333. k/R. Your OP has certainly brought them out.

[Blue_Tires]

349. Meanwhile, your boy Greenie is on MSNBC decrying the Oscar's "disgusting opulence"

If he's going to make it this easy for me, I might as well not bother...

Also funny how MSNBC is one of his favorite whipping boys as an example of "beltway insider, limousine liberal establishment news" -- Except for the times when they invite him to come on...

[LiberalLovinLug]

373. And if he did the opposite?

And gushed at the Oscars? If he fawned over MSNBC? Do you ever question your opinions if it is so "easy"? You ridicule him for NOT doing what you project?

When you are automatically anti-everything with Greenwald or Snowden no matter what, you end up with no credibility at all. Isn't that embarrassing to share?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

378. He hasn't made it very easy for you.

In another thread from a couple of weeks back, I asked for people to provide some evidence that Glenn Greenwald was a liar. It's a charge one hears often enough around here, but no one has provided any evidence of that accusation. Contrast this with the government officials you believe, the ones we know with certainty lied under oath (Alexander, Clapper).

So by all means, bring what you've got to counter Greenwald. You may eventually hit on something.

[PatrynXX]

368. nor really a hater of anyone

however he is a traitor and must face his crime. No hero hides in Russia and be anything but a traitor..

[LiberalLovinLug]

386. You don't hate traitors? You are so kind

So

a. Anyone who "hides" in Russia is an American traitor.

(Despite the fact that the American government nulled his passport so he cannot fly out.)

b. He must face his "crime".

(Even though if he returned he would not get an open pubic trial for the American public to witness and would be charged under the Espionage Act wherein he would be denied to use any whistle blower defense, and would not even be allowed to use that term. He would be kept in solitary with no voice, and likely would stay there for many years after the secretive kangaroo court, presiding over a literally defenseless defendant, pronounces him guilty)


I'm sure he would consider coming back for trial if he could be assured a fair one. Here is one idea of how to do it:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/23/snowden-deserves-jury-trial-nsa-leaks

But Snowden’s trial need not be typical. The Department of Justice and Snowden’s attorneys could agree to conduct it by a slightly different set of rules, rules that would permit the jury to consider the full extent of the alleged governmental wrongdoing he uncovered along with the full scope of his alleged crimes. For example, perhaps as part of an agreement for Snowden to return to stand trial, federal prosecutors could allow him to present evidence about the legality of the programs he disclosed and, ultimately, argue that his actions were justified by the alleged wrongdoing he revealed.

[randome]

385. This thread (and topic) sucks.

It's clear that what you wanted was a sucky thread and you have a win for your side.

But everyone here knows that nothing will be resolved regarding Snowden, no matter how many pronouncements he makes from Russia, no matter how often Greenwald disses Democrats.

Snowden will never return, never be free for the foreseeable future, unless one counts living in Russia as 'free'.

No matter where one falls on this debate, it should be clear as spring water that Snowden has lost. I could understand if not accepting that led to vindication or something but it won't. All you're doing at this point is this:

And that's not as much fun to watch as it used to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

403. Had you watched the documentary, you'd know.

You'd know that Snowden already considered his life and livelihood forfeit when he came forward. So yes, in that sense, Snowden has "lost"--how could it be otherwise? But in another sense, the one he describes in Citizenfour, he's already won, irrespective of what happens to him personally. He did what he set out to do.

[randome]

426. How did he win? WHAT did he win?

By starting a conversation? That's all well and good but what if the conversation doesn't go where he wants it to go? It's pretty obvious that the wholesale changes he wants in the world will not occur and he will remain stuck in Russia for the rest of his life.

And saying that's all he wanted sounds like a naive rationalization on his part since it's clear he didn't get what he wanted.

So what did he win? Moreover, what do you think will happen (not want to happen) by continually praising him? What is the point? Are more people rallying to his cause? I don't see that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[DisgustipatedinCA]

432. What he won is entirely subjective. But he did address this point.

Go to his words and decide for yourself what you believe or don't believe. But he did state his case clearly.

What do I think will happen as a result of me "continually praising him"? Probably nothing, outside of me getting on some DUer's nerves here and there. Nonetheless, I'll continue to say what I wish to say on the topic of Ed Snowden, and I'll let others decide what sort of effect they believe my words have.

[Nay]

508. I saw the documentary. Snowden, IMO, articulated what he wanted to win, which was indeed

to 'start a conversation.' He wanted the American people to know what was going on, period. He admitted that he knows his disclosures will ruin his chances for a normal life, but he was willing to do that. He also is aware that the security state may certainly roll on despite his efforts, but he felt the effort had to be made.

He may remain stuck in Russia because his US passport was canceled while he was in Hong Kong (IIRC) and the only thing he could do was accept a private flight to Russia as it looked like he was going to get arrested in Hong Kong. I have no doubt that he'd be happier in Ecuador or Venezuela, but it is what it is. At least his girlfriend was allowed to join him. Even at that, at the end of Citizenfour he is looking very tired and underweight. It was a very momentous thing he did, whether you agree with his actions or not.

I wish him well because I'm one of the ones who thinks he sacrificed himself to inform his fellow citizens about what is going on.

[randome]

512. If only more government contractors did what Snowden did when they disagreed with policy.

There was no emergency that justified Snowden stealing whatever he could get his hands on and giving it to corporate media organizations.

Nothing that justified this histrionic display of super-heroism.

Remember, he said he "saw things" but he won't ever say what that means.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[TerrapinFlyer]

396. What a strange OP... "suck it up!"

Some people can string together different events to come to any conclusion.

What was Snowden wearing at the Academy Awards?

[WDIM]

404. never be afraid to stand up for what is right

Whistle blowers are heroes. They risk everything they have to stand up against much more powerful forces that are doing wrong.

We the people own this Government. Snowden is a citizen doing the right thing protecting the constitutional rights of his fellow citizens. The NSA should be disbanded along with every other Bush expansionist program. Anybody that defends the NSA might as well be a Bush cheerleader. What the neo-cons have done to this country since 9-11 is the real atrocity.

God save the whistle blowers unless we all stand up for what is right there will never be justice and there will never be peace.

[99th_Monkey]

405. +100 nt

[Blue_Tires]

410. Bravo---410+ posts and still going strong

Serious question for the OP: Are you honestly trying to insinuate that my personal opinion of Edward Snowden should be moved one iota because a sympathetic documentary about him from an ally filmmaker won an Academy Award?

[99th_Monkey]

413. That's entirely up to you, if your opinion is moved by the Oscar win.

I just think it's awesome because the Oscar means the movie will get MUCH more exposure,
and because of that, Snowden's perspective will be there for all to see and decide for
themselves if he's a whistle-blower or a "traitor", as should you decide for yourself.

[Blue_Tires]

417. True...Good points

well said...

Hopefully with more exposure to the public, maybe some in the public will start asking more questions...

[99th_Monkey]

418. Here's hoping

[Rex]

440. This is a huge thread, just making sure everything is ok. Did you eat the fish or chicken?

I know what you are going to say, so save your breath.

[WillyT]

454. Kick !!!

[Old and In the Way]

460. My thoughts on this thread.

(1) No big surprise that Republicans are outraged with Snowdens revelations. They hate Obama. Had this info been disclosed prior to Obama being elected (and I hope we can agree that this didn't start on 1/2008 )or, shudder to think, this facilitates a Republivan victory in 2016....there would be a complete and viceral reaction to this type of disclosure.
(2) A mind thought experiment. Let us assume that Snowden's revelation percipitates a sea change on domestic/international survellience. No more NSA, CIA, DIA or any other acronym agency can collect intel on anyone....inside or outside the USA. Are we/world safer for this reaction?

[Warren Stupidity]

469. Those of you in this thread regurgitating the usual talking points who

haven't even bothered to watch the movie, it is probably time to shut the fuck up.

[JonLP24]

470. I'm watching now -- and WOW

Brilliant idea to start filming after receiving the e-mail. No wonder its also considered a "Thriller" by HBO. It begins with Greenwald referencing candidate Obama's words & why it is an issue why he is running for issue but however the actions which Obama claimed were "illegal" appeared to be done by Obama himself.

This documentary deserved its Oscar in the first 2 minutes.

The guy that involved in designing the NSA dragnet shortly after 9/11 which Minority rep Nancy Pelosi was briefed on as well as other CIA programs. Goes on mentioning his group had concerns they naively thought the courts would address. He claimed he was berated & threatened & closes with "eventually they came in with guns drawn".

The narrator begins with referencing several assertions by government officials which "I can prove is a lie". Mentions how accountability is non-existent.

Why Snowden is hated as opposed to the sociopaths behind the troubling revelations is, I don't know, I gave up hope for meaningful change a long time ago.

[AtomicKitten]

473. Just saw CITIZENFOUR today.

It was a powerful piece and Snowden makes a credible witness and source.

[randome]

483. This has been an entertaining thread. It's sort of like that movie, The Purge.

Where everyone gets to indulge their primal screams.

See you next year, Mr. Snowden!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

485. Who gets exonerated in that one?

[randome]

487. Don't know. Never saw it. But this part of a RottenTomatoes review sounds like every Snowden thread:

...attempts to make an intelligent point, but ultimately devolves into numbing violence and tired clichés.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you think childhood is finished, you didn't do it right the first time.
Start over.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

488. Oddly enough...neither did the writer of this OP!

[99th_Monkey]

504. You 3 appear to be in a distinct minority

Had to resort to tagging on the end of over 500 replies, to try to trash the thread after-the-fact, have "the last word, etc. Really?

In case you missed these posts, they represent just a few of hundreds of comments in support of Snowden, and the OP article, and the Citizenfour Oscar being well-deserved.

ATOMIC KITTEN: "Just saw CITIZENFOUR today.
It was a powerful piece and Snowden makes a credible witness and source."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6275478

PSCOT: "What Snowden revealed is the only vindication he needs"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6268436

billhicks76: "Don't Engage The NSA Lovers
Anyone who defends the spying used to gain leverage,often on important Americans, isn't worth having a normal discussion with. There is so much evidence of wrongdoing that you really must question those who promote this. It's completely Un-American anyway."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6271293

markpkessinger: "Nevermind that heroes like Daniel Ellsberg have endorsed Snowden's decision to leave"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6270061

JDPriestly: "The Greenwald/Poitras/Snowden/Guardian team has already won so many honors that any "subsequent downfall" will ruin the reputations and place in history for the people who try to wreak vengeance on Snowden, not on Snowden.
What is done is done. The world is grateful and has demonstrated its gratitude to Snowden.
That's all we need to know. His place in history is secure. The place of the NSA? Also secure but not very enviable."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6268706

[neverforget]

501. This thread is just like a movie I never saw.

Thanks for the laugh of the day.

[Rex]

511. It's like they are not even trying anymore!

Which means they are finally starting to crack up.

I love it when someone slips up and makes a goofy comment like that!

[neverforget]

513. It's funny but also concerning that opinions are formed that way.

[99th_Monkey]

503. You 3 appear to be in a distinct minority

Had to resort to tagging on the end of over 500 replies, to try to trash the thread after-the-fact, have "the last word, etc. Really?

In case you missed these posts, they represent just a few of hundreds of comments in support of Snowden, and the OP article, and the Citizenfour Oscar being well-deserved.

ATOMIC KITTEN: "Just saw CITIZENFOUR today.
It was a powerful piece and Snowden makes a credible witness and source."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6275478

PSCOT: "What Snowden revealed is the only vindication he needs"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6268436

billhicks76: "Don't Engage The NSA Lovers
Anyone who defends the spying used to gain leverage,often on important Americans, isn't worth having a normal discussion with. There is so much evidence of wrongdoing that you really must question those who promote this. It's completely Un-American anyway."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6271293

markpkessinger: "Nevermind that heroes like Daniel Ellsberg have endorsed Snowden's decision to leave"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6270061

JDPriestly: "The Greenwald/Poitras/Snowden/Guardian team has already won so many honors that any
"subsequent downfall" will ruin the reputations and place in history for the people who try to wreak vengeance on Snowden, not on Snowden.
What is done is done. The world is grateful and has demonstrated its gratitude to Snowden.
That's all we need to know. His place in history is secure. The place of the NSA? Also secure but not very enviable."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6268706

[randome]

509. See you at next year's Snowden-fest, 99th!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[U4ikLefty]

507. Sorry...he's a poopie head with boxes in his garage.

[Blue_Tires]

514. None of my points have been proven wrong...

So you keep sucking