General Discussion

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)

1. IMO, it all depends on your objective. If your primary interest is in becoming informed & reigning

Tue Aug 13, 2013, 02:54 PM

Aug 2013

Last edited Tue Aug 13, 2013, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

in the NSA then you can criticize the way S. & Greenwald handled this.

If your primary objective is to either whip UP outrage or damage a Democratic President, you will not be willing to acknowledge how improperly this was handled. Furthermore, you will spend a great deal of energy calling anyone who sees shades of gray an "apologist".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There are two Snowdens: the whistle-blower, and the seemingly random leaker who is willing [View all] pnwmom Aug 2013 OP

IMO, it all depends on your objective. If your primary interest is in becoming informed & reigning KittyWampus Aug 2013 #1

Home Truths, Ma'am The Magistrate Aug 2013 #2

Yes, and I simply can't read any of those posts anymore. I was trying to get a balanced view but kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #3

stasi-bot is my particular favourite. n/t Whisp Aug 2013 #5

Sounds about right. Just Saying Aug 2013 #8

+1 Jamaal510 Aug 2013 #11

You're complaining about name-calling? ljm2002 Aug 2013 #15

Hey! Zip it, you emoprog far left reactionary screamer firebagger! Marr Aug 2013 #47

Snowden is irrelevant bowens43 Aug 2013 #4

He's absolutely relevant when he's in possession of information that could endanger lives. pnwmom Aug 2013 #6

He said from the very beginning that he wanted the info vetted so that possibly harmful Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #19

He didn't say that he would be choosing a "handful" of journalists. pnwmom Aug 2013 #20

He did not give the Chinese anything they did not already have Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #41

He gave them IP addresses. They didn't know which IP addresses we'd been targeting pnwmom Aug 2013 #42

I don't believe it did any such thing. It was fairly benign information Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #43

come on. robinlynne Aug 2013 #62

If he wasn't capable of vetting the information, maybe he shouldn't have leaked it? bhikkhu Aug 2013 #45

It is a ridiculous argument. Of course he should have leaked it and then as he did, find Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #50

Leak it first and vet it afterwards? That doesn't make sense. pnwmom Aug 2013 #55

On the contrary, the secret information makes him extremely relevant jeff47 Aug 2013 #12

When he needs more money he could sell the secrets to anyone willing to pay. AlinPA Aug 2013 #13

If that had been his goal he could have done that in the beginning Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #38

Maybe he already has, but who can say for sure? AlinPA Aug 2013 #48

How can we rule that out? How would we know? n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #54

It would not make logical sense to go to all the trouble he did Mojorabbit Aug 2013 #59

He couldn't have continued working while he "raked it in" without risking the prison sentence pnwmom Aug 2013 #60

Thanks for injecting some sanity War Horse Aug 2013 #7

I'm anti-surveillance but i'm cautious about Snowden for this reason AZ Progressive Aug 2013 #9

*****DER SPIEGEL IS WORKING WITH THE CIA!!!**** Cause GG said, or will say they are... uponit7771 Aug 2013 #10

Me thinks Angela Merkel protests to much about friends spying on friends.... midnight Aug 2013 #14

Me, too. n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #16

The first Snowden was nothing more than a fabrication. A Potemkin man, as it were....... AverageJoe90 Aug 2013 #17

That's Der Spiegel's determination. wtmusic Aug 2013 #18

He trusted Spiegel's judgement on this. Why shouldn't we? n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #22

You can say any of the leaks endangered Americans' lives. wtmusic Aug 2013 #23

Maybe they shouldn't be doing things that could hurt us. pnwmom Aug 2013 #25

Well so far those "things" are only in your imagination. wtmusic Aug 2013 #30

The "pronouncement" as to the risk came from SPIEGEL, not from the administration. pnwmom Aug 2013 #31

Spiegel is a news corporation, which is a business run for profit bhikkhu Aug 2013 #46

Exactly. He's said that he's planning to release his documents to journalists pnwmom Aug 2013 #49

True. And some of us didn't NEED him. The debate was in progress. DevonRex Aug 2013 #21

Since you don't know - at all - whether he's caused any harm wtmusic Aug 2013 #24

He and Greenwald have claimed that they have documents that could cause pnwmom Aug 2013 #26

They could possibly cause great harm to our clandestine, illegal security apparatus wtmusic Aug 2013 #27

Right. Every other major country in the world can keep on spying, pnwmom Aug 2013 #32

Are you really that frightened? wtmusic Aug 2013 #33

Do you know that little history? Here's an example of American spies who saved lives. pnwmom Aug 2013 #34

We can always learn more, can't we. wtmusic Aug 2013 #36

You're ignoring the point of the OP. pnwmom Aug 2013 #39

Please tell me you're not comparing the WOT to WWII. wtmusic Aug 2013 #37

WOT? pnwmom Aug 2013 #40

You know, just because you repeat shit over and over again doesn't make it true. Th1onein Aug 2013 #28

Same goes. n/t Just Saying Aug 2013 #29

What did I say that isn't true? n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #35

You would know, I guess. nt Hekate Aug 2013 #51

Is that how you "win" an argument? With a personal insult? Th1onein Aug 2013 #57

You made me LOL:"You know, just because you repeat shit over and over again doesn't make it true." Hekate Aug 2013 #58

Well, they keep on and ON and ON with this bullshit about how Snowden endangered lives. Th1onein Aug 2013 #61

One of the authors of this (July 1) Spiegel piece is Laura Poitras. deurbano Aug 2013 #44

You're right. The article is sympathetic toward Snowden. So there's no reason to doubt pnwmom Aug 2013 #53

Good OP, pnwmom. KnR for the ones engaging your OP with thoughtfulness. Hekate Aug 2013 #52

Thanks, hekate. n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #56