Is it OK to criticize Edward Snowden?

[ProSense]

13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	10 (77%)
	No
	3 (23%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[NaturalHigh]

1. Sure, but I don't know much about him.

[ProSense]

2. Had to check. n/t

[Whisp]

3. Who? We don't even know who he is yet.

But we know what he did.

If I had to guess tho, likely a Fuck Ron Pauler. You know, that racist, sexist, every ist there is out there p.o.s.

[flamingdem]

30. but, but, he's in favor of marijuana

duude i'd vote for him

[RobinA]

4. He's White

So I guess so. Besides, why do you ask? I thought you were the arbiter of who we are allowed to criticize.

[Bonobo]

5. What's the point of "criticizing" his politics?

Unless you are trying to suggest that the information he revealed is:

A) meaningless

B) a trick designed for a political end

---------------
Snowden is not a political figure. He is not elected. He has no political power and he has no duty to serve the people as do elected officials in the government.

So what is the purpose, import and validity of criticizing his personal politics or behavior --especially in contrast to the importance of the issues that surround him?

[Thinkingabout]

7. He was a paid employee, entrusted with security information but has run amok for the cause.

Instead of getting his freedom and liberty he needs to be incarcerated for a long time.

[Bonobo]

9. He should be incarcerated for breaking a corporate contract?

Ethics trumps sleazy corporate contracts in my book.

But that is all besides the point. The real question I asked is "Why criticize him or pay any attention to him on an individual level at all?"

The answer, of course, is that he dared to make the Obama Admin (and by extension the apologists) look like the rank hypocrites they are on the issue of surveillance.

[Thinkingabout]

10. He is a crook, a thief, not worthy of any consideration. He knows he is a crook working

For a crooked cause.

[Bonobo]

12. Well we agree on one thing.

He is not worthy of consideration, but the issues he helped bring to light most certainly are.

So then why is he being considered so much? Hmmmm....

[Thinkingabout]

27. The issues was already known, maybe all did not know but I heard of this before the Patriot Act and

Surveillance Act. So what issue did he bring to light?

[Major Nikon]

34. You assume that his actions are a net positive for the redress of those issues

As yet, I'm not convinced of this.

[Rise Rebel Resist]

25. your on the money sir

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Isn't that what Bradley Manning is? A paid employee entrusted with security information? n/t

[ProSense]

11. For the

"What's the point of "criticizing" his politics?...Snowden is not a political figure. He is not elected. He has no political power and he has no duty to serve the people as do elected officials in the government."

...same reason other people's politics are criticized. He exposed himself to public scrutiny by his actions. He committed a crime.

Bruce Schneier believes he will be remembered as a hero.

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3009479

I don't think the situation bodes well for Snowden. The "hero" thing might not pan out.

Schneier also said that Snowden "broke the law," a fact that "isn't under debate," and that "the law is there for a good reason." He also acknowledged that the Justice Department will prosecute Snowden.

U.S. charges Snowden with espionage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023063699

[BlueCaliDem]

16. So, is that a no? Why didn't you vote "no" then?

Worried that someone might believe you're more of a Libertarian than Democrat?

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. It should be OK to criticize anyone if they don't meet our expectations. n/t

[rucky]

8. What do you think this is?

An internet message board?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Yes, but that doesn't change the facts about what he revealed.

[bowens43]

14. sure it's ok but it's also irrelevant. The messenger and the motivation are both irrelevant.

[ProSense]

15. That's what

"sure it's ok but it's also irrelevant. The messenger and the motivation are both irrelevant."

...you'd like to believe, but anyone who commits a crime is going to be subjected to scrutiny: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3065794

Why is it OK to make it about the messenger when labeling him a "hero," but not if he's being labeled in less flattering terms?

[railsback]

18. Exactly

'Hero' = relevant

Everything else = not relevant, you WH cronies.

[delrem]

19. It's OK to criticize Jesus Christ, even if you're a Christian, in my book.

But w.r.t. Snowden, I prefer to focus on the facts that he's revealed.

If someone else wants to smear him as a person, that's their right.

But then, I think the WOT is a POS used for over a decade to fuck us over. And I think the WOT is getting so out of hand under Obama that neocons must be envious of his methods. I don't believe a word that comes out of an american politicians mouth anymore, whether "progressive", "liberal", "conservative", "tea-party", or "middle". Not one word of it has changed a bloody thing, however nice the sound byte.

I don't want to hear any more peachy keen rhetoric, I want to see people in politics making sacrifices and taking risks in attempts to actually fix the mess, and I don't see that.

[HardTimes99]

36. I sometimes wish Jesus had taken more of a "Fuck you, motherfuckers!" approach

to Pharisees, Moneychangers and the like. Come to think of it, I sometimes wish I'd hear those words spring from Obama's lips, when speaking of McChinless and Boner

[former9thward]

20. Is it ok to criticize Daniel Ellsberg?

Yes it is. It is ok to criticize anyone. Which is something you don't seem to believe.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

21. Sure. How about Washington?

Or even Obama?

Think about it...







It's YOUR point, right?

[kentuck]

22. It's OK to criticize or defend, whichever you choose...

How else can you have a discussion??

[Jarla]

23. Well, there are certain criticisms of Snowden that I don't like very much

I don't like when the media talk about his girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, as his "pole-dancing girlfriend," as though she's some kind of slut, because it really maligns her character and is completely irrelevant.

I don't like that some people seem to be very critical of the fact that he didn't finish high school. It feels to me like there's an underlying belief that if someone doesn't have a certain level of formal credentials, then that therefore means that s/he must uneducated or unintelligent.

And I'm uncomfortable with the claim that anyone who supports Ron Paul is an extreme right-wing nut job. I was under the impression that some people like him because he opposed the war in Iraq and is against the use of torture.

[noise]

24. Is it ok to criticize incredible poll questions?

No. It should be illegal.

[Rise Rebel Resist]

26. it doesn't make you a racist but

I have to wonder how much irrelevant weak sause against this person can be consumed

[cali]

28. No. You do not have my permission to criticize Snowden. In fact,

you must set up a shrine with his photo, 3 glass containers of water, a lotus flower and a 3 inch shallow porcelain dish of pink tibetan sea salt, all arranged on a sea green hemp cloth, and pray to him 6 times daily. on your knees, head hung in shame for the the disrespect you've shown him.

silly op which deserved an equally silly response.

[ProSense]

29. Figures. n/t

[cali]

35. what figures?

that I'd poke fun at a silly poll?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Yes. But, not if he's elected president.

[sibelian]

32. You can criticise him as much as you like.

Just don't expect me to take you seriously. Because I won't.

[HardTimes99]

33. What is the purpose of this poll? To the extent Snowden has made himself a public

figure, of course it's 'OK' to criticize him. But I'm still unclear as to why that would matter, other than to deflect attention from the grave breaches of trust his leaks and Greenwald's reporting have revealed.

[ProSense]

37. It's

"What is the purpose of this poll? To the extent Snowden has made himself a public figure, of course it's 'OK' to criticize him. But I'm still unclear as to why that would matter, other than to deflect attention from the grave breaches of trust his leaks and Greenwald's reporting have revealed."

...to find out if it's OK to criticize Snowden. Sorry if that wasn't clear. The responses in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023065177) gave me the impression that he was above criticism.

I know, that OP is about Rand Paul, but I decide to focus the poll on Snowden instead of Paul because some of the responses seem to imply that the OP was designed to attack and discredit Snowden.

[HardTimes99]

38. Mucho gracias. I had seen the thread about boosting the Libertarian brand, but had

not yet spun through it, so didn't make the connection.

Did I mention I really, really despise Libertarians? (Maybe even more than I despise Republicans, if such is even possible!

[flamingdem]

39. Additionally, is it okay to criticize someone who gave classified intelligence to the Chinese?

I can't see many Americans agreeing that this was acceptable. It was at best done as a bargain of some kind and at worst for payment. That is not to smear him but to recognize that's the way these things are done. Once he made certain choices those kinds of compromises had to follow.