...um...psssst...the US government is not going to assassinate Edward Snowden...

[WilliamPitt]

...and anyone who thinks they will has read too many Jason Bourne novels.

[trumad]

1. Well one thing--Edward Snowden is not Matt Damon.

[raccoon]

32. But he sure is cute. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

74. uhhh...right. no. the mole looks like a weasel.

[DesMoinesDem]

2. The president has a kill list.

No need to pretend the government is above assassinating people. They aren't.

[backscatter712]

4. At this point, it'd be impolitic to kill Snowden - too much blowback.

Killing members of Al Qaeda? Not so much blowback, so they get drone double-taps.

[pnwmom]

12. They have killers like bin Laden on their kill list; and Snowden's not a killer. n/t

[DesMoinesDem]

16. The kill list is just an example of the government having no problem with assassinations.

And you don't have to be a "killer like bin Laden" to get on the list. al-Awlaki and his son were both assassinated and they didn't kill anyone.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

30. Please don't get the "We should have gone easier on Bin Laden" crowd started.

[liberal N proud]

27. Where does he keep this "kill list"

[DesMoinesDem]

56. Under his bed? In his stock drawer? You'll need to ask him.

[liberal N proud]

61. I vote for jock strap

[DesMoinesDem]

66. Why do I get the feeling you have no knowledge at all of Obama's kill list?

Ignorance and a rofl icon doesn't win arguments.

[liberal N proud]

67. Because I live in the real world?

[DesMoinesDem]

69. You live in a world of ignorance.

Let me help you out seeing you don't have the time to google a few words:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+secret+kill+list&l=1

[liberal N proud]

73. Some cannot tolerate when others do not agree with them...

[DesMoinesDem]

75. LOL. What? This isn't about disagreeing. This is about you denying the reality of a kill list.

It is a fact, and you don't want to acknowledge it. Can you even admit that it exists? Can you say 'Obama has a kill list'?

[madokie]

3. From my read of the various papers

I'm not so sure that Snowden is that big of a deal to the other countries as he is here on DU. If I read our publications it seems as if they are pushing that narrative but when I read the foreign press they don't have near as much to say.
I think its pretty much common knowledge that countries spy on one another in any fashion they can. I'm not saying I agree with what is going on as I'd like to see the USA completely staying out of others bidness and worry with our own people and issues.

[KharmaTrain]

5. 8th Day Wonder...

...and we're on at least the 50th day. Each day Snowden is stuck in the transit lounge or hides in some other foreign country the less relevant he becomes. Add to that the vitriol and outright blackmail Greenwald just spewed and it sounds more and more like a desperate stunt for publicity that detracts from the serious issue of NSA abuses and the important need to either repeal or severely revise the "patriot" act.

This is more like a bad early 60s Cold War era sitcom...I keep waiting for Maxwell Smart to admit his shoephone was being recorded.

[snappyturtle]

6. On the contrary, the government is assassinating Edward Snowden's

character....a slow death. imho

[backscatter712]

9. Very true! Just watch the posts here on DU! n/t

[Progressive dog]

11. Eddie committed character suicide,

no one had to help.

[Pholus]

13. Too bad it isn't about "character," isn't it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/25/heres-everything-weve-learned-about-how-the-nsas-secret-programs-work/

That burning you feel is sunlight leaking in. The best disinfectant, I am told.

[snappyturtle]

60. Great article. Hope everyone reads it. nt

[snappyturtle]

14. If you mean he put himself on the line for supporting and defending

the 4th Amendment, yes....he solely, and I contend, bravely, did.

[Progressive dog]

15. No I mean that he chose to committ character suicide

by exaggerating his claims.

[snappyturtle]

20. How do we know he has exaggerated his claims? Who among us here at DU

has seen the actual disclosure documents? I doubt we ever will.

[Progressive dog]

21. Well the looking at all the President's phone calls

is a pretty big exaggeration, kind of calls into question other claims based on "proof" that he can't disclose.

[snappyturtle]

57. Yep....that's right we haven't seen them which is my point. nt

[Progressive dog]

64. Not much of a point nt

[KittyWampus]

26. We know because what he "revealed" has been printed in mainstream news years ago.

[snappyturtle]

58. We know he exaggerated his claims because what he revealed has

all ready been printed??? Really.

[liberal N proud]

28. Bingo!

It is amazing how this has gotten twisted and hard to believe that DU has stooped to these low standards of slander.

[karynnj]

22. Exactly what did the government do or say that can remotely

be called character assassination? Everything they have said has dealt with ACTIONS that no one disputes Snowden has taken. He had a job where he had a high security clearance and he VIOLATED that -- and he took sensitive information to both China and Russia. As a computer expert, he has to know that if those laptops are taken away - something he can not prevent - any encryption can be broken.

It is ONLY his actions that have created his image - that is actually true for both those who support him and those who think what he did was dangerous.

The media did try to get out everything they could about his past - but there is nothing to suggest the government had anything to do with that. In fact, ANY questionable past would be harmful to the government itself as it would mean that they never should have given him clearance. FOR THIS REASON, IT IS NOT IN THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST TO DO ANY CHARACTER ASSASSINATION IN HIS CASE.

[snappyturtle]

24. The government isn't telling us anything more than what Snowden has readily

admitted to. His ACTIONS as you pointed out.

You're right that Snowden has created an image. To some he is imagined a traitor. Feinstein, e.g. has called him a traitor. I think I can agree that he has been a traitor....but to whom or what? Has he been a traitor to TPTB in the government and their agenda or to the U.S. Constitution which is what we are commanded to give allegiance?

To your last shout out in your reply, I again agree. It definitely "is not in the government's best interest to do any character assassination in his case" however, they do it anyway.

Feinstein:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/yep-they-went-there-dem-senator-feinstein-says-nsa-leaker-snowden-committed-treason/

[karynnj]

33. Feinstein is not speaking for the Obama administration

As to the US constitution, he never tried to challenge the programs in the courts -- or even to take what he knew to the Congress, which has the power to modify the law -- or to anyone in the administration which can change how things are done.

Even Feinstein is going from what everyone agrees that he has done. In calling him a traitor, she is just saying when someone with clearance gives the information he has to everyone and, per his mentor, has even more serious documents that he has taken with him to Russia and China, they are violating the government's trust -- and are being reckless with US classified material.

This is NOT character assassination - it is a characterization of the actions taken that she would say no matter who did what he did.

[snappyturtle]

40. A few points:

1) I never even mentioned Obama. I cited Feinstein as a government employee...part of TPTB.

2) I agreed I could call him a traitor to the gov't...TPTB, but my distinction is his allegiance to the Constitution.

3) Are you so naive as to think Snowden could have gotten to Congress to sort this out? After a call to his local congressman he would have been reported and taken into custody for a treasoness act. Public debate would have been snuffed out.

[karynnj]

77. Few points for you

1) Feinstein is an elected official who is one of the two Senate representatives of California. Nothing that she said is character assassination. She is referring to the actions - disclosing classified information and taking classified information out of the country - as traitorous. It is certainly reckless to take 4 laptops to Russia (and China). As a crack computer person, he has to know that given enough time, any encryption can be broken. The Russians do not have dumber computer people. The rules that he was given when he was given the clearance cover things like this. (think about it - he, the German paper, and Greenwald ALL say there is some stuff that will hurt the US not yet released. It is on the laptops and in Russia. Can he insure that Putin does not take them? If you think he is in control, you (and Snowden) are the naive ones.

2) The Constitution itself gives the Supreme Court the right to determine what is unconstitutional. It is not a right given to every employee of the government. In addition, his saying that he could extract anyone's records - does not mean the government does this. (In fact, he is the computer skilled analog to a long ago international operator who spoke of overhearing Jackie Onassis' international call. She was violating the AT&T code of conduct when she did that, he is violating his companies rules when he does. As to the government, the issue is that they need a FISA order. It is Congress' job to insure that this is done appropriately .

3) As to him being arrested when he went to Senators Wyden or Paul, who have made this an issue long before Snowden is paranoid. Not to menion, this was an issue an the floor of the House and Senate for months in 2006/2007 and more recently when it was renewed.

[liberal N proud]

29. The Snowden supporters are digging in deeper with fabrications.

[Enrique]

7. it would be extraordinary

but extraordinary things have been happening for a while now.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. "Extraordinary" is one way of putting it

I prefer "frikkin' unbelievable" myself.

[morningfog]

35. Obama has assassinated a few Americans so far.

They were labeled terrorists. If Snowden's status is ever changed to that, all bets are off.

Or is the assassination policy expands, but I can't see that happening.

[great white snark]

10. You sure? Greenwald would never ever embellish purely for personal benefit.

Never I tells ya.

[The Straight Story]

17. Probably not, they will stick with killing kids with drones. But if they do, sure some folks will

be ok with it. All in the interest of keeping the US safe.

[Scurrilous]

43. Yes.

That's the plan.

Wake up. Breakfast. Go to office. Meeting. Break. Another meeting. Lunch. Nap. Conference call. Kill a kid w/ a drone. Pose w/ visitors in Oval Office. One last meeting. Call it a day.

I heard President Obama can't make it through the day without killing at least one kid. @#$% him!!1!

[hardcover]

76. where do you get off posting crap like this?

Obama is protecting you as best he can. You know damn well he's not targeting kids.

[Scurrilous]

81. Oooops.

[Zorra]

18. Some here may be very disappointed to learn this. nt

[Octafish]

19. It's not assassination when a sub-contractor does it.

Erik Prince is good at filling in the paperwork, especially the invoices.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022511484

[think]

54. Snowden assasination plots aside the outsourcing of war

does allow for a scenario to occur where private elements operate outside the scope of their official involvement with the US Govt.

And the contractors would still be under some form of immunity and perhaps even classification while doing such things....

JMO

[Blackford]

23. "...and anyone who thinks they will has read too many Jason Bourne novels."

OR are ginning up controversy via purely hyperbolic rhetoric.

[liberal N proud]

31. Most likely the latter

The need to keep the rhetoric in Snowdens favor to support their backing of his actions.

[KittyWampus]

25. YOU"RE AN AUTHORITARIAN APOLOGIST NAZI!

[morningfog]

34. I don't think so, at least at this point.

However, I could imagine many scenarios in which that changes. I could also see the US causing his death in their pursuit of him.

[WilliamPitt]

38. "I could also see the US causing his death in their pursuit of him."

He might trip over a bench in the Moscow airport and fall down some stairs?

[morningfog]

39. As long as he stays in the Moscow airport

the US seems to stay hands off. When they thought he was on a head of state's plane, they tipped their hand that they will aggressively pursue him. If he departs on a private plane, who knows what the US will do, or what will happen.

[snappyturtle]

41. +1 nt

[Enrique]

36. "In case I disappear"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2255599

In Case I Disappear
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 29 September 2006

I have been told a thousand times at least, in the years I have spent reporting on the astonishing and repugnant abuses, lies and failures of the Bush administration, to watch my back. "Be careful," people always tell me. "These people are capable of anything. Stay off small planes, make sure you aren't being followed." A running joke between my mother and me is that she has a "safe room" set up for me in her cabin in the woods, in the event I have to flee because of something I wrote or said.

I always laughed and shook my head whenever I heard this stuff. Extreme paranoia wrapped in the tinfoil of conspiracy, I thought. This is still America, and these Bush fools will soon pass into history, I thought. I am a citizen, and the First Amendment hasn't yet been red-lined, I thought.

Matters are different now.

It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.

[WilliamPitt]

37. That was about getting jailed.

Not getting assassinated.

Nice try, tho.

[TeeYiYi]

42. Didn't sound like just jail.

"These people are capable of anything. Stay off small planes, make sure you aren't being followed."

<snip>

Matters are different now.

It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. [/div class="excerpt"]

TYY

[ucrdem]

44. That was 2006 and a different administration.

Much different. The world changed in 2008 but some refuse to acknowledge that the US President is Barack Obama. I wonder why that is?

[WilliamPitt]

48. Trust me.

I wrote it.

[chimpymustgo]

70. Yes, you wrote it, and "stay off small planes" still means the same. Snowden should be more worried

about his safety than you EVER needed to be.

Please don't minimize the danger - and the possible consequences - of his exposing the government's illegality.

[HardTimes99]

52. Good catch! - nt

[ronnie624]

45. If the US government ever gets its hands on him,

he will disappear into a dungeon, never to be seen or heard from again. He'll likely wish he had been assassinated. The outcome will be a distinction without a difference.

[avaistheone1]

46. I agree with you.

k&r

[polichick]

47. Yeah, they haven't assassinated Bradley Manning...

So nothing to worry about, right?

[whatchamacallit]

68. Exactly

After 9/11 the government can now simply bury you alive so to speak.

[Orsino]

49. Will you trust the official version of his demise?

What odds would you take on a bet, and how would any party collect?

[HardTimes99]

50. I respect your writing too much in general to attack you for this. So I will instead

pose a hypothetical question:

Is it possible that there are rogue elements within the security apparatus of the state that might seek extra-judicial remedies for Mr. Snowden, independent of what the broader entity called the 'U.S. government' might intend? IOW, do you have full confidence that the chain of civilian command has not been compromised?

More to the point, can you understand why some of us might not retain full confidence that the civilian chain of command is intact?

[ucrdem]

51. If I may, it's much more likely that the "rogue elements" are sponsoring Mr Snowball

than that they are plotting to assassinate him. On the other hand, Snowjob is their patsy-of-the-hour, and sometimes patsies talk to much, at which point rogue elements might need to eliminate him. So I'll give you that.

[HardTimes99]

53. I had not paused to consider that possibility. So, your hypothesis would

be that Snowden might be the unwitting dupe ('patsy') of rogue forces within the U.S. security apparatus seeking to use him to de-ligitimize Obama (and thereby the civilian chain of command)?

I would submit that either scenario is really terrifying, a sort of life imitates art thing, a la Fletcher Knebel's Seven Days in May, where it was generals (and possibly admirals?) seeking to overthrow the duly elected president.

[ucrdem]

55. Yes, but it's not just my hypothesis.

Several posters here have recognized this as a RW op from the get-go. Personally I don't look at it as a military operation so much as a political one, another GOP ratfuck along the lines of Benghazi and the IRS affair aimed at peeling away Dem voters in 2014 and 2016. But since it involves the NSA and BHA you are likely correct about the generals, who are probably still seething over the Petraeus take-down and Obama's overall reduction of the US military footprint. And yes that includes the drone program which renders a lot of Pentagon business obsolete.

[HardTimes99]

63. That's an interesting alternate hypothesis and one to which I shall have to

give due consideration. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out in a little more detail. My thinking was that Snowden's demise might be sought by people within the security apparatus upset at the possibility that their $1 billion\year gravy train might be coming to an end sooner than they wished or expected.

Do you think we shall ever know the truth for sure within our lifetimes? Are you confident that the civilian chain of command remains intact?

[ucrdem]

71. Those are really good questions!

Do you think we shall ever know the truth for sure within our lifetimes?

Yes I do, and sooner than later, though I'm not confident that the truth will necessarily penetrate the general consciousness. For example, I think we've pretty much figured out what went down on Nov. 22, 1963, including who what and why, but the unofficially official story, i.e. the conventional wisdom taught in school, still has it that LHO acted alone, ditto Sirhan Sirhan.

Are you confident that the civilian chain of command remains intact?

Now that is a question for the ages, literally. In fact Cicero used to rail about putting down the spear and taking up the toga in the Roman senate, before he was assassinated by Marc Antony that is. Frankly I think it's one of those timeless struggles, like the class struggle, which it probably predates. Thanks for presenting it that way because I'd never really thought about it in those terms.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. What incentive does a rogue element have to kill him?

There have certainly been rogue elements in the past Iran-Contra, CIA drug-running, etc. But they all had incentives to do what they did.

What incentive does a rogue element have to kill Snowden? There's certainly no money in it. And as far as I know, he didn't send troop movements to the Taliban or anything like that so it's not like he got someone's brother killed in combat and they'll be out for a vendetta.

Killing Snowden would turn him into a martyr and essentially prove his point about the US government. No entity in the US government, official or unofficial could possibly be that stupid.

[HardTimes99]

83. Any portion of the security apparatus that feels its budget and\or existence

might be threatened by Snowden's continued freedom and revelations, for one.

Alternatively, UCRDem has suggeested that a putatively rightwing rogue element might have used Snowden as a patsy or dupe to 'ratfuck' Obama and now has to silence its patsy before the ruse is revealed.

Both hypotheses assume that President Obama and the White House no longer have full control of the exective branch, a terrifying prospect if true. But consider that NSA whistleblower Russell Tice has alleged that the NSA was wiretapping Obama as early as 2004, along with members of SCOTUS and other high officials. It may be an unproved assumption, but there are legitimate reasons for concern, hence my admonition to Will and his OP.

[olddots]

59. I don't think they read the books

they downloaded the movies .

[Safetykitten]

62. Well, I tend to agree, but he should avoid palm trees and Mercedes just to be safe.

[WinkyDink]

65. David Kelly. Nicola Caligari. The Palestine Hotel.

[Hydra]

72. I'm not sure how you got that information Will

The last time I checked, "nothing was off the table" involving threats to "national security."

Personally, I think they'd prefer to Jose Padilla/Bradley Manning him, but since they grounded Morales plane, I can't think they are very particular on how they shut him up.

I bet his name comes up at the weekly "Terror Tuesday" meeting quite often.

[deurbano]

78. Ellsberg: "I hope that he finds a haven, as safe as possible from kidnapping or assassination

by U.S. Special Operations forces, preferably where he can speak freely."


From: "Snowden Made the Right Call when He Fled the U.S."
By Daniel Ellsberg, July 07, 2013


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-07/opinions/40427629_1_daniel-ellsberg-pentagon-papers-snowden-s

I think it is unlikely Snowden will be assassinated (especially since he didn't do this anonymously, and the whole world is now watching), but I don't think assassination concerns are completely unfounded.

[Enrique]

79. Ellsberg is reading too many Bourne books

good find, thanks for posting.

[DevonRex]

80. The U.S. won't. Thanks to Greenwald our enemies might kill him to harm us.

And all the while people here would blame us. Just look at all the people here who think the U.S. would kill him.