Edward Snowden In 2009: Leakers Should Be 'Shot In The Balls'

[Galraedia]

Source: Huffington Post

NSA leaker Edward Snowden despised classified leaks in 2009, illustrating that the former Booz Allen Hamilton employee was not always the champion of transparency that he has become.

The technology website ArsTechnica published IRC chats where he railed against a New York Times story about the U.S. rejecting an Israeli request for aid to attack an Iranian nuclear site and the United States' covert efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

"Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ. they're like wikileaks," he said in the chat.

"they're just reporting, dude," said another user.

"moreover, who the fuck are the anonymous sources telling them this?" he said. "those people should be shot in the balls."



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/edward-snowden-leakers_n_3504746.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

---

Edward Snowden in 2009: Leakers Should Be "Shot in the Balls" - PolicyMic

Chat logs published by the popular tech news site Ars Technica reveal an Edward Snowden who held very different views about whistleblowers four years ago than his actions this month would imply.

On #arsificial, a channel on Ars Technica's public Internet Relay Chat server, Snowden shared his opinions with other users on everything from life in Switzerland ("God I hate metric. Why can't they use real numbers over here?&quot to Ron Paul ("He's so dreamy.&quot to unemployment in the US ("Almost everyone was self-employed prior to 1900. Why is 12% employment so terrifying?&quot to Social Security ("Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine.&quot .

It's no surprise, then, that in the course of looking through Snowden's more than 800 posts on Ars Technica, one encounters several comments about the NSA and the state of privacy in the United States. What is absolutely shocking, however, is what Snowden said.

In one remarkable chat that took place in January 2009, Snowden ranted about a New York Times article that described secret negotiations between President Bush and Israel about the Iranian nuclear threat. Snowden was incensed about the fact that the Times had used government insiders, none of whom "would speak on the record because of the great secrecy surrounding the intelligence developed on Iran," as sources.

Read more: http://www.policymic.com/articles/51403/edward-snowden-in-2009-leakers-should-be-shot-in-the-balls

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Hmmm... This won't go over well on DU

[Octafish]

39. Like David Vitter says: 'Depends.'

Until he leaked the NSA illegal spying on America story, I'd never believe so many DUers would side with the secret goverment spies.

[BillyRibs]

74. DUers would side with the secret goverment spies!?

I Think Not. I believe it's a song called "Potus uber alles!"

Really if you were to infiltrated an organization that was spying on everything you and 300,000,000 people said. what would you say to gain favor, or keep the light of scrutiny off of you? Let's get real folks.

[SharonAnn]

47. So women leakers are immune?

[MADem]

72. I have to wonder how evolved this guy's views on women are, based on some of his comments.

By April, a few months into his Swiss adventure, the chats show that Snowden was warming to the country. "Yeah… It's pretty cool so far," he wrote. "The girls are gorgeous, too. Oh, and prostitution is legal."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/

[Ikonoklast]

91. Well, Snowden is a libertarian.

Legalizing prostitution is one of their favorite issues.

[MADem]

95. Well, I guess I'm not surprised.

I will say, the guy has a very high--and IMO undeserved--opinion of himself!!!

I wonder how smart he's feeling about now...?

I also wonder if this "Run, Eddie, Run" game was all his idea, or if his hubris--which is evident in everything he's written on the net that I've seen, and in his rather pontificating interview--tripped him up. Did he really jump into this, eyes wide open, or did his pride allow him to be goaded or pushed by those reporting/documenting this saga in a sort of "put your money where your mouth is, Big Boy" kind of way?

I do think he had an idea that he'd go to Hong Kong, be greeted as a liberator, remain ensconced there in luxury as an honored guest, and the government of Iceland (which isn't as liberal as it used to be--they recently got new, centrist leadership) would leap through their own assholes to roll out the red carpet for him... "Eddie, Eddie, come to us! You'll be a more beloved exile than the racist wingnut Bobby Fischer!!"

Instead, Hong Kong said "Pack your bags, get the hell outta here, they're coming for you and our puppetmasters in Beijing have told us that you don't have anything in those laptops and thumb drives that we haven't aready acquired through our crack PLA Unit 61398 in Shanghai! You're a day late and a dollah short, son! Git 'em up...mooooove 'em out! Here's a Russian phrase book--you might need it!"

Either way, there's only two words to describe his deserved future--he's fucked. He'd better learn to do without his computer, because he's going to have to make do with books and magazines when he becomes a guest of the government.

[still_one]

2. New tweet just in from Snowden, "I was only kidding"

[uhnope]

3. more evidence he's an unstable character

he thinks they can send the "triads" after him, that they're going to murder him, he says he could listen to any conversation or read any email in real time, he's cozying up to dictatorships. Seems more and more like a loon.

[Thinkingabout]

4. I guess he gave his balls up and is not worried about getting shot in the balls.

He just may be someone's patsy, we need to find the leader.

[George II]

26. The day we found out he snuck off to Hong Kong was the day he has no ball to shoot at!

[Thinkingabout]

30. K & R

[Cha]

83. touche' George

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. !!!

[avaistheone1]

5. Galraedia we already have a thread on this story that You already posted on in General Discussion.

duplicate thread.

[MjolnirTime]

6. You don't like this, eh?

[OKNancy]

7. duplicates are only against the SOP in LBN

This is not a duplicate in LBN.

[avaistheone1]

9. TY

[Marrah_G]

16. She just wants to be sure we all see how awful he is!

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2013, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Otherwise we might discuss the actual problems surrounding our privacy.

[avaistheone1]

29. Discuss. Discuss. Discuss among yourselves.

[azurnoir]

31. Lol +1 n/t

[L0oniX]

37. I heard that he stomps on baby bunnies.

[Maximumnegro]

8. He also supports Ron Paul, is Pro-Gun

Backed McCain, hates Hillary and - wait for it - wants Social Security axed.

So yeah. Real Hero, with the BEST of intentions.

Once again the dem base backs the wrong horse and chases after distractions just in time to pout their way out of the midterms. Again.

[Major Nikon]

12. Gives money to a slavery apologist and neo-confederate and thinks he is a champion of liberty

What a hero.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. +1

[Anansi1171]

55. + a billion trillion!

Cuz lose the midterms is exactly what happens when the dem youth go paulite while the VRA hangs on a cross.

[avaistheone1]

10. He eats pizza.

[AnnieK401]

15. Oh well, he must be OK then, despite everything.

[MADem]

45. He's just a ball shooting pizza eating kid who likes Pepsi!

[last1standing]

11. So if we let you shoot Snowden in the balls can we look into the information on domestic spying?

If that's the trade I say let's do it. Obviously some people have a personal hatred of Snowden and really, really want to watch him suffer. I want to know what this NSA program, and its British counterpart, are collecting, storing and trading. So you shoot Snowden in the balls and let me continue to request this information in peace.

Deal?

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. The two aren't mutually exclusive you know. There's a pro & con side to every issue. Snowden is no

different. What's amazing is the folks clamoring for more transparency re: the NSA, but think any discussion of Snowden and his somewhat bizarre history isn't up for debate. I know your response was intended to be a sarcastic one, but the intial bombshell is fading from the news, and despite the best efforts of his fans, his latest moves have become very troublesome for many.

[Summer Hathaway]

20. You have to follow the circular logic ...

It's not about Snowden, it's about what he said.

But he hasn't proven anything he's said.

Yeah, but he said it. That's all that matters.

Well, since he's offered no proof of what he said, maybe we should look into who Snowden is, to get a better idea of whether he's credible or not.

No, you can't do that.

Why not?

Because it's NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT WHAT HE SAID!!!

[AnnieK401]

22. I love it!

[last1standing]

23. Alright, let's compromise. Let's look into both Snowden AND what he said.

I don't give a Damn about Snowden or his past. I don't care if his girlfriend was a stripper, or that he support Ron Paul, or that he hates Social Security, or that he likes pizza. I don't think that changes his allegations in the slightest if he has backup to support his claims and/or the NSA doesn't specifically deny them.

So do you agree that it's alright to look into the information Snowden provided so long as you can look into his personal life?

Edited for typo. I'm sure there will be many, many more.

[Summer Hathaway]

49. I just have to get in one comment at the start ...

Those of us who are interested in Snowden's past as a means of assessing his credibility are not interested in whether his girlfriend was a stripper, whether he likes pizza, etc. I realize his supporters want to throw such nonsense into the mix in an attempt to equate legitimate queries with having undue curiosity about the man's personal life, but it has become old, tired, and juvenile in the extreme.

That being said ...

A matter of weeks ago, Snowden was a completely unknown entity - until he revealed, through Greenwald, that the NSA was collecting and storing phone records (not content, but records of calls). This has been known by those paying attention - no shocking revelation there.

But Snowden went on to allege that someone in his position had "the authorities" to access all kinds of personal information on individuals - including the president. It was an allegation he has yet to prove in any way, shape or form.

Given that he has not proven his most serious assertions, it stands to reason that any thinking person would look to his past in order to get a sense of WHO this person is, and whether he has a 'track record', if you will, of being an idealistic truth-teller or a complete nutcase - or where they land on the scale between those two extremes.

I find it amusingly ironic that the same posters on DU who scrutinize every word ever uttered, every position ever taken, every minute detail of the lives of anyone Obama has appointed to any position in order to flesh-out WHO that person is and what they stand for, are the same people who were willing to take Snowden at his own word, without any regard to who HE is.

Snowden was literally deified by many here based on what he had to SAY, without any regard to anything else, because what he had to say fit their preconceived notions of a big, bad gov't running amok.

As soon as their idol's behavior started to stink of less-than-heroic motives, and a complete inability to offer evidence of what he SAID was going on within the NSA, they retreated to the "It's not about the man, it's about the message" meme.

I don't know about you, but when a completely heretofore unknown entity makes allegations like those Snowden has offered up as 'facts', and then fails to come up with a scintilla of evidence to back up those 'facts', I am not about to simply take him at his word. And no reasonable thinking person would, or should.

[last1standing]

60. I don't disagree with any of your points..

But I do believe it goes both ways. There are those who are looking for any excuse to slam Obama and those who will defend even his most cynical moves. Like everything else in today's politics, Snowden has become a football which each side is trying to move further down the field. This is why I took a very, very long break from DU. It started before Obama's election and has continued since. Personally, I supported Obama in the primaries and general election but was quickly disenchanted when his policies didn't match his campaign rhetoric.

Anyway, when it comes down to it, Snowden's personal information is being released in a manner calculated to make him look like a person with no moral compass, which is not true from what I'm seeing, and is likely to backfire on those putting the info out. The other side is merely going to continue using it as an excuse to martyr what appears to be an incredibly normal person.

My take on Snowden is that he's your average young adult who has strong convictions but doesn't understand why. I talk to similar people every day who are socially liberal but don't understand why we have a welfare state. I find the reason for the lack of understanding tends to come from a similar lack of real world experience. Most grow out of it.

Regardless, I am very serious when I say that I don't care about Snowden, I care about whether there are proper safeguards in place to keep our government from obtaining our personal information without a well scrutinized warrant. The answer to that question should be what we all want to know.

[Summer Hathaway]

75. "Snowden's personal info is being released ...

... in a manner calculated to make him look like a person with no moral compass."

You've totally lost me there. Snowden made himself 'the story' by his own actions, and his current behavior speaks for itself. And based on those actions and behavior, his 'moral compass' seems to be rather lacking.

By making sweeping allegations without evidence to support them, Snowden invited scrutiny. And whatever facts about his past emerge as a result thereof are not a matter of calculation, but a matter of natural curiosity about who he is as a way of assessing his credibility.

"I care about whether there are proper safeguards in place to keep our government from obtaining our personal information without a well scrutinized warrant. The answer to that question should be what we all want to know."

I don't disagree. The problem here is that it's been stated over and over, since this whole debacle started, that the proper safeguards are in place to prevent unnecessary access to whatever personal information the gov't currently holds - and the response from the Snowdenites has been consistent: "Oh, sure, they're saying that, but they're lying."

Again I must say that I savor the irony of those here who steadfastly refuse to believe anything they are told that is contrary to what they want to believe, while concurrently swallowing every word Snowden has said without demanding the proof of his words - or even thinking that proof might be even remotely relevant to the case at hand.

[last1standing]

76. I'm fine with not agreeing on how Snowden's personal information is being uncovered.

It's not that big of a deal to me since I find most of it to be petty gossip with no bearing on the real issues. Whether Snowden lied on his resume isn't my concern and knowing that just about all people lie at some point, I'm not going to flat out dismiss his claims because he padded his CV.

Another poster did point out that Snowden has shared information with the Chinese and the Russians and I will agree that depending on what was shared, in which context, this could be an issue with real implications. He did himself no favors there.

As for irony, I think both sides of the debate have had their share of those unwilling to even consider that the other side might have some valid points. That's a shame.

[Summer Hathaway]

77. "So he lied on his resume" ...

... keeps being brought up as though THAT is the issue those skeptical of Snowden's credibility are concerned with - we're back to the "he prefers Pepsi to Coke" BS.

It's simple: When you make extremely serious allegations about the US gov't delving into the personal information of its citizens, and then offer NO proof to back up those allegations, the natural order of things is that people are going to look into the messenger's background - having been given NO OTHER RECOURSE to determine whether those allegations are to believed based on his word alone.

In light of Snowden's actions in the past week, it seems obvious that his "I just wanted the American people to know what was going on" has a very hollow sound to it.

[last1standing]

78. Snowden claims he has the evidence to back up his statements.

And when he has found refuge in another country I think he needs to back up his claims or have them cast into serious doubt.

On the other hand, as many of us have been saying since the bush years, we need stronger protections in place against abuses by our intelligence agencies. As I've said, I'm mainly concerned with the sharing of information between the US and other countries in order to get around Constitutional issues, but I'm also worried that so few warrants have been denied by the FISA courts (I'm worried about this rate in regular courts as well). We need proper check and balances along with strong rules that prevent agencies from using loopholes to gather private information.

I'm all for fact checking Snowden, so long as we fact check the NSA as well.

[Summer Hathaway]

79. Well, there's one thing we're in agreement about

"I'm all for fact checking Snowden, so long as we fact check the NSA as well."

The problem being, as I stated earlier, that those who are convinced that the Big Bad Gubmit is out to 'get' them will never be convinced that every possible system of checks-and-balances is just another lie they're being told as part of the BBG's conspiracy against the citizenry.

As for Snowden, the info he gave the Chinese has already done damage on the foreign relations front, which in turn reflects very badly on Obama and his Party. THAT is the ball I've had my eyes on from the beginning of this game - knowing exactly WHICH PARTY stands to gain by that chain of events.

[last1standing]

80. We're coming in from different angles but it looks like we agree on the basics.

We need to know the truth no matter who it helps or who it hurts. The future of our country, and everything we stand for, demands that.

[Summer Hathaway]

81. Agreed to the max.

[emulatorloo]

61. Well done n/t

[Cha]

84. thanks for your post, Summer. nm

[7962]

85. Here's whats "wrong with Snowdon"

A whistleblower would blow the whistle as many before have done; gotten a lawyer, testified before congress, etc. This "whistleblower" has blown the whistle to both the Chinese and the Russians. Absolutely no excuse for that. You dont expose wrongdoing by running to those who stand against us and releasing god knows what to them. This guy is no hero. I wonder if he didnt plan this for a long time.

[last1standing]

96. I can't agree with that.

I won't hold a whistleblower to an artificial standard that I might not be able to meet, myself. If I were to expose what I believed was governmental wrongdoing at this point in history, I would likely flee the country as well. For me, it is enough that he exposed the alleged wrongdoing. I won't try to tell him how to live his life for that.

However, that doesn't mean he would be justified in releasing sensitive, classified information to the Chinese or Russians. If he has done that, then he should be prosecuted.

[7962]

103. You know darn well he's done that.

Think he just "talked" to the Chinese for days?

[last1standing]

104. Is this something you know for a fact, or just "reckon?"

I know for a fact that no one on this board outside possible Chinese, Russian or US agents has any real answer to whether Snowden shared classified data with a foreign power. Do I think it's possible? Of course, but I'm not willing to convict the guy just because I don't like him or because he hurt my feelings by doing something that makes the Obama administration look bad.

I have a little more respect for that old, and obviously obsolete, saying "innocent until proved guilty."

I "reckon" that's a good place for me to stand on this issue.

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. "Because it's NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN, IT'S ABOUT WHAT HE SAID!!!"

Talk about breaking an argument down to it's bare (ridiculous) bones, I salute you!

[MADem]

46. +1!!! nt

[last1standing]

28. I also don't think his history is up for debate.

His history is what it is - his history. I'm not calling Snowden a hero and I'm not personally invested in making him out to be one. I do think that the fact that the White House is allowing the NSA and other groups to use his past to personally smear him disconcerting and it makes the point that we shouldn't be letting these groups have our personal information without a proper search warrant instead of a rubber stamp.

I wouldn't want my personal information easily accessed and used to smear my name if I did something unpopular with the ruling government at the time. Would you? I'm no so vain as to think I have nothing to hide.

But I am serious. I think that Snowden's heroism might just lie in offering himself up as a sacrificial lamb (at least so far as his reputation is concerned) in order to spotlight the gross indifference this government has for our personal privacy and malicious purposes to which they are willing to put the information they collect.

So if the government needs to shoot Snowden in the balls as retribution for releasing this information and changing their practices, I say go for it. It won't be Snowden's actions that end up making him a hero, it will be the government's overreaching smear job that makes him a martyr.

Just something to think about.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. "the White House is allowing the NSA and other groups to use his past to personally smear him"?

Allowing? You mean like they directed the IRS to target only teanutter groups? WoW! I think we're done here.

[last1standing]

59. Yes, I think we are.

Sorry, no cute, but insulting, pictures included. I don't need them to make my points.

[truebluegreen]

89. ???

Except A) the White House didn't direct the IRS, and B) the IRS didn't target only teanutter groups.

Or did I misunderstand you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. You definitely misunderstood. I was making the point that the thought of Obama directing some....

agency of the federal government to engage in character assasination of Comrade Snowden is about as plausible as Obama ordering the IRS to "target" teanutters. Both thoughts are equally absurd. I find it highly amusing that the people making this charge have been attacking the president's character since he walked onto the political scene. Pres. Obama just isn't that petty.

[truebluegreen]

101. Okay.

But while I agree that Obama personally isn't directing some agency to smear Snowden, dollars to donuts somebody is. It's what they do when they get embarrassed.

[Marrah_G]

14. He is a box hoarding, ballerina heart breaking, unfriendly neighbor too!!

[burnodo]

17. Just another reason not to focus on Snowden

it's what he revealed that's important

[Alamuti Lotus]

19. Why are IRC chats being archived?! *nt

[azurnoir]

33. Good point

seems look over there reveals itself to be quite a spectacle

[MgtPA]

21. Hero, traitor, sinner, saint - who cares??

He's just the source, that's all.

It's the SPYING that matters.

[George II]

24. Aha! I suspect some of us knew something like that (maybe not so graphic) already.

[Luschnig]

25. Snowden is the same now as then

He believes in himself just as much and in others just as little now as then. Because to him it is all about Edward and whatever flea he's got in his ear at the time. Just because he is fervid doesn't mean he is serious.

[George II]

27. Sounds like a profile of Assange!

[Warren Stupidity]

32. So about the NSA spying on everyone all the time...

[onehandle]

34. Self-serving prick. nt

[24601]

35. Only a sexist pig implies all leakers are male.

[L0oniX]

36. Mean while the NSA continues to snoop on us all. Thanks for the distraction.

[Alamuti Lotus]

38. Roughly how many gov't contractors are getting overtime

looking up dirt on this guy? Once again, irony flies out the window as the surveillance state flexes its impotent and atrophied muscles.

[MADem]

50. Probably none. The media is having a field day--he's better than the "best" Kardashian. nt

[DCBob]

42. Well that confirms my opinion of this guy.

[cstanleytech]

43. I have a question for all of you here supporting Snowden.

First set aside the NSA gathering the metadata for just a minute please.
Now once we do that how exactly is Snowden a hero and not a traitor for revealing details such as that the NSA was breaking into computers in China? I thought that we were supposed to oppose that kinda release of classified information? What has changed to make the person who releases classified information a hero now unlike from when Libby revealed Plames name and most of us here wanted him to spend actual time in jail?

[MADem]

48. But Libby was OLD.....and UGLY!!

Snowden is YOUNG....and CUUUUUUUUUUTE!

You can look into his eyes and see his soul, doncha know!!!


You know, just like Porgie and Pootie Poot!!




Just don't ask him what he thinks about the social safety net...that might RILE him!

[sulphurdunn]

53. Nothing's changed.

Snowden should turn himself in. Get a fair trial, be convicted and have his sentences commuted by the President, just like Libby. Fair enough.

[MADem]

69. President (Jeb) Bush would probably accommodate your request...

As a nod to his Teahadist-Libertarian base.

He'd dance with the ones what brung him, I'm sure....

[sulphurdunn]

86. What changed between

2009 and 2013? Honestly, having changed a position neither validates the old position nor invalidates the new one. Snowden is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of his own argument and should not become the argument.

[Ash_F]

58. Maybe the US should stop violating the sovereignty of country with which it is huge a trade partner?

Shake their hand with one hand, stab them in the back with the other?

So what if they do it to us? It doesn't make the NSA right to do it back. We can absolutely guarantee that the US started it first anyway, if that is the kind of logic that you use.

If it is such a big deal to our masters, then the US should stop trading with China altogether. But the elite want their cake and eat it too.

Dems need to stop equating this program with their party and president, and then getting blindly defensive. Never forget this this was all the Bush Cabal's idea and the NSA/DNI/CIA is filled with right wing tools appointed by them such as Mr. jitterbug spy-director below. They can't wait for the next Dem candidate to lose because of the unpopularity of the own program. They will have their cake and eat it too.

NSA =/= Obama
NSA =/= Democrats
NSA =/= Americans

Look at this weasel. Does he sound like a Dem to you?

Instead of defending this program you should support shutting it down while connecting it to the previous admin.

[cstanleytech]

64. I agree with you a great deal Ash

however that post fails to answer the question

[MADem]

71. The Chinese steal three billion a year in Intellectual Property from USA.

That's a conservative estimate. They are running a military unit out of Shanghai that does nothing but hack military, industrial and commercial sites.

They aren't the good guys.

Details:

http://www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf

Check the date on this 'un:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57405684-17/china-nabbing-great-deal-of-u.s-military-secrets/

This isn't news, but the Chinese have done a great job, aided by angst-faced Snowden, to flip the script.

[cstanleytech]

73. "They aren't the good guys." Never said they were.

[ReRe]

44. No wonder he's on the run!

[sulphurdunn]

51. In spook land

one may say anything, whether one said it or not. Even if one said it, one's deeds should speak louder than one's words. Once upon a time there were people who knew that.

[relayerbob]

52. He's a pawn ...

Who is trying to destabilize the US/World? Who does he know? Where does the money trail lead?

[Lugal Zaggesi]

65. You think

the world is "stable" right now ?

[relayerbob]

67. Compared to the alternatives ...

oh, yeah. Things could be MUCH worse.

[Lugal Zaggesi]

70. True

but I don't think "destabilize" is the word we want.

Maybe "worsen", "aggravate", "escalate" or "inflame".

[relayerbob]

98. Fair enough

[marble falls]

54. This crap isn't what its about. Get off the Snowden Circus bandwagon! It's the invasion of privacy

by NSA that's been defended by the President and Sen Feinstein, Lindsay Graham, Sen McConnel etc that's the really upsetting part of it! And the privatizing of the operation?!!

[marble falls]

56. Maybe thats why he cut and run. Maybe "shot in the balls" is policy and not just his opinion.

[askeptic]

57. Well, if hypocrisy is a disqualifier, I have a pretty big list you can include

...and it can start with our dear President, and then almost every public official. Talk about double standards.

Hypocrisy about hypocrisy?

How does this change the value of what was disclosed? The documents showing oversight procedures have been printed. Why were these a secret? I'll wait for the character assassination until more facts emerge....

[liberal N proud]

62. And now he is a hero to some!

[riderinthestorm]

63. Newsflash! Most people re-evaluate their positions in their 20s.

Some people evolve their positions over many decades too.

4 years in the life of a growing, changing 20-something is a loooonnnng time.

Look at how many congresspeople have changed their mind on DOMA in the last 4 years.

[question everything]

66. Of course he would. 'cause he has none

A coward who chose China and Russia where, had he done this to them would be executed by now. Instead, he is being used by these two countries, and perhaps, Cuba or Venezuela or Ecuador, to poke a finger in our country's eyes.

[blackspade]

68. I guess he changed his mind?

Big whup.
Another tidbit to add to the Snowden distraction.

Who the fuck cares why he did it?
He is not the story.
The info he leaked is.

[silvershadow]

87. Yep. Maybe he was covering for what he was really up to? Who knows? Keep your eye on the ball,

everyone.

[Cha]

82. Snowden: "Ron Paul(he's so dreamy.)" gag

...Ron Paul ("He's so dreamy.&quot to unemployment in the US ("Almost everyone was self-employed prior to 1900. Why is 12% employment so terrifying?&quot to Social Security ("Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine.&quot .

Selfish prick

thanks Galraedia

[ucrdem]

88. That one bonded him to half the peanut gallery. nt

[Cha]

102. Exactly, urc.. his words are melded to his $$$$ donation to racist/homophobe, Ron Paul

in 2012.

"Somehow, our society managed to make it hundreds of years without social security just fine.&quot . The BigHypocriteHOOHA.

The stupid burns white hot on that one.

[truebluegreen]

90. Who cares?

[Jesus Malverde]

94. Probably all you need to know about this evidence.

The Ars IRC server doesn't log conversations, and there are no official transcripts of any discussions on that server. However, after learning that Snowden appeared to be an Ars user, we received chat logs from multiple longtime users who recalled IRC conversations with the user known as TheTrueHOOHA. That IRC user claimed he was the registered Ars user TheTrueHOOHA, who posted nearly 800 posts in Ars forums, including biographical information and photos that match Snowden.

Any handle can be adopted in IRC. However, such "identity theft," while theoretically possible, is unheard of.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/

FWIW these "logs", submitted by users, are text files. Replacing a name in a text file is trivial.

[Galraedia]

100. Joe Mullin, the reporter who wrote the Ars Technica article, said...

that a number of longtime users of #arsificial sent in their chat logs, which from their formatting, time stamps and other technical details appeared to be authentic. In addition, he said, some of the logs were thousands of pages in length, and the material from TheTrueHOOHA was only a tiny fraction of that, scattered through material from other users, so it appeared highly unlikely that the material was fabricated.

[warrprayer]

97. no one should be shot in the balls

... well, almost no one...

[tblue]

99. Isn't that just what you'd say to make

people trust you? A bank theif doesn't say, "I think thieves are cool" when he's trying to get a job with keys to the vault.

If Snowden planned to do this, he might have lied to earn the trust of the people hiring him. Is that surprising? He wanted the job.

[Pterodactyl]

105. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!