Thank you, Edward Snowden, for so clearly allowing..

[grasswire]

.....the separation of the sheep from the goats.

Those who stand for the Constitution and courage are clearly separated from those who don't, by their own words.

Those who are on the right side of history applaud you, Edward Snowden.

[SidDithers]

1. ...

Sid

[arely staircase]

4. it is actualy getting kind of sad

Some have become so emotionally invested in this guy that they are doubling down even after he went full metal Putin lackey. Arguably he always has been such but now that he is so publicly so his fan club is getting way smaller but way sadder.

[SidDithers]

11. +1...

Sid

[Scuba]

21. If only this were only about Snowden the NSA apoligists would have won the day!

[arely staircase]

23. if you are calling me an nsa apologist then you are either ignorant

Of what I have repeatedly said on this issue or are being disingenuous. But I do appreciate your honesty in conceding that Snowden has lost personal credibility. Right? I mean how else could the so called nsa apologists have won because of this if it were only about Snowden?

[Scuba]

26. It was never about Snowden. And sorry, but I don't recall any of your posts.

I guess that makes me disingenuous, although I've no idea what I'm being disingenuous about.

[arely staircase]

31. no it would just make you ignorant of what I have written which is better than being disingenuous

I am glad Snowden blew the whistle on nsa overreach and I have supported legislation to do away with the phone info collection. However I am not happy Snowden went to China and shared USintel with them about US espionage activities against that country. Nor am I pleased with him sitting in Russia and doing propaganda for Putin.

So I think Snowden did his country a favor with one action but betrayed it with others.

[raindaddy]

53. Scrutiny

You're right Snowden did this country a favor yet it seems he's placed under more scrutiny than the people responsible for creating a surveillance state.

I hear more bitching about Snowden's motives, he's egotistical and wants center stage, he's a traitor, he left the country, Putin's puppet,etc...

And the motives of the NSA and the politicians who supported the "overreach" ,or the CIA actually spying on the people elected to represent us because they were investigating CIA "overreach"?

I guess we've gotten so complacent that we now expect to get reamed by our government but anyone who takes a risk to expose the continued abuse of our civil liberties better be a f-ing angel, and be willing to face "harsh interrogation techniques" and spend thirty years in solitary confinement.

[Obnoxious_One]

70. Great post.

I agree I find the criticism o Snowden to be entirely out of line when looking at the people that are actually violating the rights of the American people.

[grasswire]

74. excellent

topsy turvy world, eh

[G_j]

123. +100

[bvar22]

161. Nailed It, raindaddy.

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy and Government accountable to The People
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[Enthusiast]

170. Plus one an entire shit load!

[WillyT]

181. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[sabrina 1]

115. Maybe your constant obsession with Snowden with little to say about the Bush appointed crooks

still, for some reason, operating our National Security Agencies, we did throw them out, but there they are still perpetrating crimes against the American people, and you are only concerned about Snowden. Hard to blame people for thinking you consider Whistle Blowing to be more of a crime than Constitutional Violations put in place by one of the worst war criminals in this country in living memory, liars, war profiteers, torturers etc whose loyal appointees are still there, in the NSA with his Private Security Contractors raking in billions to violate our rights.

Thanks to Snowden's revelations, President Obama has now made a proposal to end at least some of those constitution destroying 'programs'. Next I sincerely hope to see some long overdue prosecutions. Never saw you talk negatively about these crooks, just Snowden. So forgive us if we had no idea of how you feel about the actual criminals.

[merrily]

155. FOCUS, please. Kindly confine your comments to how bad Snowden,

Manning and Assange are alleged to be.

Let's not focus on whether the USG did anything wrong or whether it continues to do anything wrong. What is really important is changing the subject to the individuals.

[sabrina 1]

172. I know, I keep forgetting, we have politicians to protect!

I have such a hard time doing that. Maybe there's a reeducation program somewhere someone could direct me to!

[merrily]

192. Let's start one! Really needed right here.

First, though, they'd have to admit they have a problem, or so all the programs say. And they will say and do anything to avoid admitting that. Not to mention that paid posters have economic disincentive to admit it. So do posters whose bread is buttered, directly or not, by the DLCDNC and/or Democratic politicians.

How many posters do you suppose anyone left of the DLCDNC can afford to pay? How much propaganda in general? How many contacts do you think they have in mass media? Or even the blogosphere? Yet, we're supposed to be awed when polls come up short. (Sorry to change the subject on you, but not sorry enough to delete, LOL.)

[Android3.14]

160. Britney Spears is possessing my body......aaaaaargh!

<channeling Britney Spears>
Scuba, you need to realize that everyone must remember everyone else's posts, and mine especially, so that you never inadvertently write something that I will infer as an insult. It's, like, one of those rules, you know? Gawd.
You should recognize and respect that I am unconcerned about the NSA spying, because I want people paying attention to me. Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.
</channeling Britney Spears>
Some folks love the NSA spying on them, because it reinforces the illusion that reality is all about them, and only them.
Narcissism is the only thing that explains the weird behavior and lack of commonsense.

[merrily]

137. Exactly. What Snowden did and why is one issue and what our government is doing

and why is another issue. Even if Snowden were like Dahmer, that would not take one whit away from massive violations of the Constitution by the USG.

[rhett o rick]

41. Your hatred is what is sad. You are directing it at the wrong people. But it's easier for you

so I understand. There really only two sides to this class war and apparently you and the Group are on the side of the oligarchs.

The populace movement is underway and you are invited to join. If you choose to side with the plutocratic-oligarchs then get the hell out of the way.

[arely staircase]

43. binary worldviews are boring and lazy nt

[George II]

44. "There really only two sides to this class war"

One of the bush/cheney/rumsfeld clan's favorite concepts - "either you're with us or you're against us"

[rhett o rick]

47. So is there more than two sided in a war? Do you choose the side of the 1%? I guess some might

consider that being pragmatic. Choosing the side of the 1% because they are stronger and offer you security.

There are really only two sides. The 1% or the 99%. And Gen Clapper isnt on the side of the 99%.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

62. I always find it sadly hilarious that those who represent about 11% of the population...

...think they represent 99%. And then try to twist it into things that have nothing to do with economics.

Black and white extremism. Your way or the highway. And argument by repeated assertion.

Anyone with a hint of a clue would understand that when 99% of the US public agrees with anything, things change awfully fast.

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

[rhett o rick]

71. As I would expect from a conservative, jibberish. You cant tell us what your principles are

can you? Are they Democratic principles or conservative principles like those of Rand Paul, or Ryan.

Anyone with a clue would recognize that if you side with Wall Street, then you dont side with the people.

I think you'd agree that you and I are on different sides in this class war.

[Marr]

93. +1

[ConservativeDemocrat]

96. I've repeated my principals many times on this site; you can look them up

In fact, I've stated them to you, and you've clearly just forgotten, or don't bother to read.

But once again, the cliff notes version: I'm just a Democrat, not an anti-Democratic Party agitator who screams "authoritarian" as an epithet at the drop of a hat. (Seriously,google this: site:democraticunderground.com "Rhett o Rick" authoritarian - it's sadly hilarious.)

I've even spoken to you about your belief in the "class war" previously, though you've forgotten about it. I just wish you could come out to rural America for a short while, and talk to the people I talk to. You'd find blood-red Republicans who don't have two nickels to rub together, and let be guarantee you that you do not speak for them in your absurd 99% class war framing. They are 100% convinced illegal-alien Latinos drive down wages, for instance, and want massive deportation campaigns. Even though the people hiring those illegal workers aren't in the "1%" either (more like the 10%), and such a campaign would make many businesses less profitable.

One would think with the US's dismal track record in non-war "wars" (War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Hunger, etc), you'd stay away from such a silly construction as a "Class War", and start thinking about it more in terms of a social policy. But honestly, I'm not expecting any degree of subtlety from you. What little actual reasoning you do is purely done in shades of black and white.

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

[sabrina 1]

116. I agree with that. But I would say your side is even less than 11% when it comes to people's

Constitutional Rights.

You don't get the 99% idea, I see. That's not surprising at all. Hint, it has nothing to do with political 'sides'.

But it's a nuanced thing so not everyone 'gets' it. Conservatives eg, tend to see things in black and white, and care only about their own interests. Liberals care about everyone, regardless of their politics. So even political enemies are included in that 99%.

Amazing isn't it, how the language of a small group of protesters who thought they would have about one week to have their say, has now become part of the vernacular. They WERE clever, even politicians are using their language.

[merrily]

138. "Anyone with a hint of a clue would understand that when 99%

of the US public agrees with anything, things change awfully fast."

When has 99% of the public agreed on anything? There was not that kind of agreement to the revolution, or abolition, or anything I can think of. MAYBE World War II---once FDR convinced the pacifists and those who were not pacficsts per se, but thought America should stay out of the war anyway.

But the 99% vs the 1% is not about 99% agreeing to anything. It's about 1% of the population taking advantage of the 99%, with the help of government and media. That goes on, whether the 99% agrees that it does or not.

[Scootaloo]

49. So you tell me, how many sides are there in class war, George II?

Don't worry, I'll try to not giggle at the juxtaposition of your name and your argument.

[George II]

61. I don't live in a world of black and white.

[rhett o rick]

73. So what you are saying is that sometimes you side with the Koch Bros?

Sorry but reality is that there are only two sides. The 1% and the 99%.

[George II]

78. "sometimes you side with the Koch Bros?"

Where the F did you see that?

[George II]

81. In my years on this site, that is probably the most ridiculous claim and request I've ever seen.....

....unbelievable.

[SunsetDreams]

83. +1 nt

[arely staircase]

101. are you now or have you ever been on the side of the Koch brothers?

How very liberal.

[NuclearDem]

183. Something very Nietzschesque about that.

[Scootaloo]

91. Apparently you don't live in a worldthat can answer an easy question, either

You say there aren't two sides. Okay. Mow many are there?

Please answer

[struggle4progress]

98. You can answer that question for yourself, but only if you are willing to engage

in a tedious and detailed class analysis, and for that purpose you need to understand exactly what realities the concept "class" is intended to abstract

A "class" is a group of people who all serve similar structural roles and who therefore have similar life circumstances and similar interests. Thus, for example, migrant agricultural laborers form a class, which is distinct (say) from the class of instructors at universities

Your effort at analysis will be complicated by modern international trade, because one class may live quite far away from another: the class of sweatshop garment workers may not always be found where the class of electronic equipment assemblers are located. Thus, in trying to develop a useful class analysis, you first need to confront the fact that there are likely to be a number of classes with which you are only slightly familiar or even entirely unfamilar

Your effort at analysis will also be complicated by the following fact: a useful class analysis is a process of abstraction from actual facts, and it requires some insight to see "similar structural roles" and "similar interests." The ideal situation, of course, is that members of the class themselves recognize their class commonalities, but this presumes that class-members can freely communicate with one another and can transcend various intellectual habits instilled by education, cultural history, mass media, &c&c. In practice, class-members will be conditioned by ideas formed fifty or more years earlier, reflecting some cultural synthesis of experiences in circumstances that no longer exist; class-members can be artificially divided by various notions (such as race); and various other factors also slow the development of class-membership awareness among class-members. So identification of a class, even if accurate and useful, may be rejected by members of the class

[George II]

136. There is one opinion expressed, the other opinion expressed, and lots of "sides" in between.

It's not as simple as there being just "1%" and "99%". You'll refuse to accept it, but some of that "1%" probably sides with some of that "99%" some of the time, and vice versa.

[reACTIONary]

144. Potentially, 7.157 billion...

the world population. Maybe more, maybe less, but since any one individual could belong to more than one "side", its probably quite a bit more than two.

[BenzoDia]

55. Emotionally invested is a good way to describe this.

Such wankery.

[sabrina 1]

56. You are correct, some are so obsessed with Snowden they even worry about his personal relationships

with his girlfriends, what he keeps in his garage, etc, they lie openly about him trying to get other people to share their intense obsessive hatred for him, kind of like rejected lovers or something. So obsessed with Snowden are they, they are incapable of focusing on the sheer depth of the corruption and violations of their OWN RIGHTS that have taken place.

I guess we could call it SDS. It's sad to watch.

And then there are those who are focused on the crimes he has revealed, who care deeply about this country and are working to restore the rule of law in this country. Which they could not have done without the information they now have. The President has now acted on the revelations proposing an END to the 'data collection and storage of that data' which he at least no longer tries to defend.

As the OP said, his ACTIONS have totally exposed those who support the security state and those who don't. Thankfully as people learn more and more from the revelations, more and more are showing in polls that they are very glad he revealed these crimes against the people.

[arely staircase]

59. show me one DUr obsessed with Snowdens garage

I won't hold my breath.

[sabrina 1]

68. Lol, I could show you more than one Snowden obsessed person here.

I don't know why they are in every thread desperately trying to get people to hate him. I mean that really is obsessive. If they hate him, fine, but obviously most people are far more interested in what we have learned from the leaks, than they are in Snowden that those suffering from SDS would be better off just ignoring him altogether. Most are not interested in what kind of person he is, so why do they keep telling us about his politics, his girlfriends etc, why keep lying about someone, what does that do for them?

[arely staircase]

69. as I thought nt

[Bodhi BloodWave]

97. I think their main problem showing you somebody

would be the minor fact that its usually Snowdens supporters who seem to be obsessed with the boxes, the pole dancing, etc etc.

At least in my eyes it tends to be his supporters who drag those out in order to try ridiculing those who criticize Snowden(even if said critic never once in the past mentioned any of it).

[arely staircase]

99. I am not going to do it but

I bet if you did a search here on "snowden boxes garage" you would get a million hits of his supporters using it to downplay oh say telling the Chinese how we are spying on them and absolutely zero mentions of it by a non Snowdenista.

He could get his own show murdering kittens on RT and when someone not in love with him posted about how Snowden kills kitty cat and that is kinda shitty it would be followed by "and I hear he has boxes in his garage"

How did that even get started? Wasn't it it a non critical comment by neighbors that were interviewed in Hawaii? As in when asked what he was like neighbors said they didn't know much about him because he kept to himself they just remember he had a lot of boxes or something? Even apart from DU, has anyone anywhere EVER actualy criticized him for boxes in his garage? I am guessing no.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

103. you are correct on the boxes i believe

If my memory is accurate then it was a couple of neighbors that mentioned it, something along the lines of that the only unusual thing noticed about him was that he had moving boxes in his garage from the floor to the roof blocking the view inside.

I don't tend to discuss this topic much here on DU mainly cause most people have already set their views in stone and as such it serves little purpose, but there is one question I've asked in a few different places but not gotten a proper answer to yet.

If Snowden is not relevant and the focus should be on the wrongdoings of the NSA...why do they get so defensive when somebody criticize him?

[arely staircase]

105. yep. it isn't about snowden

unless you think he is dreamy.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

110. there is one thing that has always amused me about DU

and this is not limited to those who support Snowden but more or less everybody on DU(even me to some degree though i don't tend to value people highly so fewer instances possible.)


One of the most common things i see on DU is people saying something along the lines of them refusing to walk lockstep with others (especially politicians) and attack those who do, yet those same people will de facto walk lockstep with people whose view they agree with and pity those who dare to insult/talk down about said person(which includes politicians )

At least to me its quite amusing to watch that disconnect

Oh, and i love your signature, its quite factual these days sadly enough(i miss the old days)

[reACTIONary]

149. An END to the data collection? Or...

... just a change in venue? The proposal does not end or substantially limit the NSA's access to or use of the data it was previously collecting. In fact, in the end, it may substantially expand its scope:

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Hayden said that, due to privacy concerns, the NSA is collecting and receiving only about one-third of the phone records it initially was accessing. Under the change proposed by Obama, Hayden said the NSA would be able to “query the data in an exhaustive way, not that one-third.”

The legislation in the House would go further, he said, enabling the NSA “to query not just telephone metadata, but digital or email metadata, too.”

Obama is defending the data collection program through a proposal that provides people "greater comfort" without challenging the principle of it or ending actual access.

[grasswire]

185. weasel words, then

thank you for that tidbit of info

[sheshe2]

60. I believe you nailed it!

[LWolf]

140. Yes.

Those who get so emotionally invested in politicians that they will double down to defend the subject of their fan club are pathetic.

[LiberalLovinLug]

154. What is sad

is this obsession with the man, his foibles, and all the projections of his reeeeeeeeeal motives.
These are the ones emotionally invested to the extreme. You can tell because their the ones with their fingers hovering over their keys just waiting for ANYONE to publish an article of support for the guy. They are usually the first on the thread.

Doesn't matter what he does, like this. If he stays silent on Putin its "Ah Ha! why is he silent on Putin?"...If he does confront Putin with questions its "Ah Ha....Its all a set up!" You just can't win with this frightened sad little crowd.

There are others of us that are more interested in detatching ourselves emotionally from the man, his life, girlfriend, where he lives, and just wish these tabloid addicts would just shut up so the rest of us could discuss the more important issue of what this brave whistleblower revealed.

I swear its like trying to deal with 4 or 5 year olds. Please go and play together in the playroom so the adults can discuss the serious issues.

[grasswire]

189. well said nt

[JaneyVee]

182. Remember when "ITS NOT ABOUT SNOWDEN!"

[Number23]

18. I know. This is cringe inducing.

[SidDithers]

58. Yup, sure is...nt

Sid

[joshcryer]

109. I physically did that when I read post #63.

I literally cringed and felt nauseous.

MLK Jr. is someone I've researched extensively. It is a joke, it's offensive, even, to make that comparison.

[Number23]

111. Prosense's response was perfectly brilliant and summed up the most glaring differences between the

two in the most reasonable, informed way possible.

[Bobbie Jo]

175. No kidding.

Those two names don't even belong in the same sentence.

Just goes to show how completely unhinged some people have become in their hero worship.

[msanthrope]

124. The Disaffected White Hero falls hard..and we've seen it before....a particular

type of poster who embraces the latest faux left anti-hero, only to have them do something like 1) plead guilty and apologize, or 2) hole themselves up in an embassy to avoid a rape investigation or, 3) become Putin's obvious tool.

You would think that after James Blond's exploits landed him in the ladies loo in the Ecuadorian Embassy, people would have learned that just because you say you are a whistleblower, it doesn't make it so.

What Snowden and his antics make impossible is the actual discussion of the law. I think Snowden is a tool, and a fool, Greenwald is an asshole, and Sibel Edmonds accurately described the "checkbook journalism" the latter is engaging in.

At the same time, I think we need to look at what FISA allows, what the NSA oversight is, and we need to look at the reauthorization of Section 215 of the Patriot Act....which might be the bloodiest legislative fight we ever see.

This makes me an authoritarian to those who engage in binary thinking.

[Cha]

90. So is Putin the Goat and Snowden the Sheep? Oh yeah.. "it's not about him".. except Eddie made

it about himself with his fucking stupid pandering to Putin and leaking to Al Qaeda.. and every other stupid thing that comes out of his mouth..

[itsrobert]

2. LMFAO

Bull-o-Nee

[KoKo]

6. You Missed the Latest!

Snowden Calls BS On Putin's Answer: Says He Was Playing The Role Of Ron Wyden--Mike Masnick
by Mike Masnick

Yesterday we, like many, were perplexed by Ed Snowden's decision to go on a Russian television program, and to ask Vladimir Putin a question about whether or not the Russians do mass surveillance like the NSA does (which was, of course, exposed by Ed Snowden). It was clearly playing into Putin's propaganda efforts, because Putin immediately took the opportunity to insist that no, Russia does not do mass surveillance like that. Of course, Putin's answer was not true. Many of Snowden's detractors immediately jumped on this as an example of how he was working for the Putin propaganda machine -- and many (including us), wondered if he was, at the very least, pressured to play a role in order to keep his temporary asylum. Others thought he was just being naive. Some Snowden supporters, however, insisted that we should hear him out, and see if there was some more specific motive behind his question.

Apparently, we didn't have to wait long. Snowden himself has now directly called Putin out for lying about Russian surveillance, and said that his question was designed to act similar to Senator Ron Wyden's now famous question to James Clapper, leading to Clapper's lie, which (in part) sparked Snowden's decision to finally release the files he'd been collecting. Snowden, writing in the Guardian, explained:

On Thursday, I questioned Russia's involvement in mass surveillance on live television. I asked Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, a question that cannot credibly be answered in the negative by any leader who runs a modern, intrusive surveillance program: "Does intercept, analyse or store millions of individuals' communications?"

I went on to challenge whether, even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified.

The question was intended to mirror the now infamous exchange in US Senate intelligence committee hearings between senator Ron Wyden and the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA collected records on millions of Americans, and to invite either an important concession or a clear evasion. (See a side-by-side comparison of Wyden's question and mine here.)

Clapper's lie – to the Senate and to the public – was a major motivating force behind my decision to go public, and a historic example of the importance of official accountability.


He goes on to say:

When this event comes around next year, I hope we'll see more questions on surveillance programs and other controversial policies. But we don't have to wait until then. For example, journalists might ask for clarification as to how millions of individuals' communications are not being intercepted, analysed or stored, when, at least on a technical level, the systems that are in place must do precisely that in order to function. They might ask whether the social media companies reporting that they have received bulk collection requests from the Russian government are telling the truth.

Finally, he notes that his position continues to remain entirely consistent:

I blew the whistle on the NSA's surveillance practices not because I believed that the United States was uniquely at fault, but because I believe that mass surveillance of innocents – the construction of enormous, state-run surveillance time machines that can turn back the clock on the most intimate details of our lives – is a threat to all people, everywhere, no matter who runs them.

Last year, I risked family, life, and freedom to help initiate a global debate that even Obama himself conceded "will make our nation stronger". I am no more willing to trade my principles for privilege today than I was then.

I understand the concerns of critics, but there is a more obvious explanation for my question than a secret desire to defend the kind of policies I sacrificed a comfortable life to challenge: if we are to test the truth of officials' claims, we must first give them an opportunity to make those claims.


I don't think many people -- other than perhaps the most diehard Snowden supporters -- expected something quite like this. For months, many Snowden detractors have repeatedly criticized Snowden for not speaking out against Russian authoritarianism and surveillance. Many of us have felt that those criticisms were significantly off-base, in part because that wasn't Snowden's particular fight (nor did he have any unique knowledge of Russian surveillance, as he did with the US). It seemed like a stupid false equivalency to try to make Snowden look bad. And when he asked his question to Putin, some people argued that this showed he was actually "questioning" Russian surveillance. Except that the TV question felt like such a softball, so designed to allow Putin to spin some propaganda that this didn't really seem like Snowden challenging anything.

However, this latest response suggests that Snowden is (once again) playing a game where he's several moves ahead of many folks. The question may have set up a propaganda answer, but it appears there was a bigger strategy behind it -- and one that remains entirely consistent with what Snowden has claimed his position has been since the beginning. Frankly, while this possibility was raised about his original question to Putin, many people (myself included) thought it was unlikely that Snowden would so directly go after his current hosts (who only became his hosts thanks to the US pulling his passport). Putin is not known for gracefully handling those who directly challenge him, and I don't think it would be surprise anyone if Snowden had continued to stay out of the question of Russian surveillance, simply out of basic necessity.

Snowden, however, has said from the beginning, that this story has never been about him, and he accepts that the end result of his starting the process may not be good for himself. He's made it clear that he was willing to effectively sacrifice himself to get this debate going -- and having done it once, he apparently has decided he can do it again in another context. While I was confused by this move 24 hours ago, I'll admit it was because I never thought Snowden would go this far (and so quickly) to criticize Russia while he was there. Already, given what Snowden did in releasing the NSA documents, he's shown that he's much braver (and in many ways, patriotic to the public) than just about anyone. In now questioning -- and then calling BS on Putin's answer -- he's shown that bravery was not a one-time thing, but a position he intends to live by going forward.

MORE AT:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140418/00394026952/snowden-calls-bs-putins-answer-says-he-was-playing-role-ron-wyden.shtml

[Electric Monk]

8. Better, direct link for that (again)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140418/00394026952/snowden-calls-bs-putins-answer-says-he-was-playing-role-ron-wyden.shtml

[a2liberal]

66. Nope, he's just a Putin lackey

he's somehow supporting Putin by publicly calling him out. Or something...

[arely staircase]

72. if by calling out you mean pitching him predetermined softball question, sure nt

[a2liberal]

82. I'm referring to his later statement about the question

whether you believe him or not about what his original intent was, he is now calling Putin out for lying in his answer.

[arely staircase]

84. show me where he called putin a liar nt

[a2liberal]

92. ok I'll assume good faith

"Others have pointed out that Putin's response appears to be the strongest denial of involvement in mass surveillance ever given by a Russian leader – a denial that is, generously speaking, likely to be revisited by journalists. "

That's the closest in actual words, but from his entire statement it's clear that he is criticizing Putin. Assuming you're not just trolling me, please read it: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/18/vladimir-putin-surveillance-us-leaders-snowden

If you're only interested in playing the semantics game about exact words then I'm not up for that tonight and will have to just agree to disagree.

[arely staircase]

95. it isn't a semantics game

You said he called Putin a liar and he did not. Which is what I think you realized when you went back and reread the article. I have read his entire Guardian piece and if I had known that was what you were talking about I would have saved you the trouble and not asked what you were talking about. It is not even mildly critical of Russian survelance. Fact is Snowden does know t hat Putin was lying because you know he was and I know he was and I am guessing that having worked in US inteligence Snowden knows a lot more about the extent to which he was lying than you or I. The day that Snowden calls Putin a liar he will be lucky if he is only put on a plane to face charges in the United States. More likely something much worse will happen to him.

[ProSense]

3. "Snowden ought to be embarrassed for helping to catapult it into the dialogue."

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024833461

In his op-ed, Snowden tries to hype the importance of his question by linking to a Daily Beast piece that calls him out for being a tool. From his op-ed:

<...>

The investigative journalist Andrei Soldatov, perhaps the single most prominent critic of Russia's surveillance apparatus (and someone who has repeatedly criticised me in the past year), described my question as "extremely important for Russia". It could, he said, "lift a de facto ban on public conversations about state eavesdropping."

From the piece linked to in that paragaph:

“I think it was ridiculous,” says Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia’s security services who is also a professor at New York University. Andrei Soldatov, a Russian journalist who has broken major stories on the Russian intelligence service, the FSB, and is a Daily Beast contributor, was only slightly more charitable. “Putin never directly lies, he just tells half truths and his answer was a half truth,” he said. “In terms of what is going on inside the country, he was not correct. We have all signs of mass surveillance. My view is Russian surveillance is much more intrusive than what you have in the United States.”

<...>

Galeotti says he found the display of Snowden’s question for Putin on eavesdropping to be depressing. “I believed he was an honest man who made some stupid choices,” says Galeotti. “But in this case he was doing what was in his handler’s interests.”

“We have to think of two Snowdens,” Galeotti tells The Daily Beast. “There was the original whistleblower who thought he was doing something good for the world. Now there is the Snowden—to put it crassly—who is bought and paid for entirely by the Russians. The Russians are not altruistic, if they are protecting him they are doing so because there are things he can do to repay them.”

<...>

Soldatov said Snowden’s question could lift a de facto ban in Russia on public conversations about the state’s eavesdropping. “Before this question both Snowden and Greenwald refused to talk about surveillance in Russia,” he said. “Now we can ask Greenwald about this. Now we can start the debate. This is extremely important for Russia. I suspect Kremlin propaganda wanted to play Snowden, nevertheless this was a positive thing because it helps us to start the debate about the mass surveillance in Russia.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/17/sorry-snowden-putin-lied-to-you-about-his-surveillance-state-and-made-you-a-pawn-of-it.htm

Soldatov was being generous. He basically said, yeah, Snowden was used, but people are talking about what happened.

The fact is that nothing came out of this charade except a debate about Putin's and Snowden's character.

A more direct question (which likely couldn't happen) mentioning a specific program or incident would have sparked a debate inside Russia. As it stands, even Soldatov admits there is no debate in Russian. I could understand why, as a journalist, he would want to use this as an opportunity to spark a debate. A staged event and a lame-ass question isn't going to do it, and neither is Snowden's op-ed, which is just another lame attempt to cover his ass after a humiliating event.

In summary: Putin's show promoted his propaganda to its intended audience, Russians. Snowden's op-ed attempts to spin it to the rest of the world.

Greenwald got his ass handed to him on Twitter from trying to spin this embarrassing episode away.

[ucrdem]

10. +1

I expect this week's fiasco spells the end of the Snowden-Greenwald kabuki which had a better run that it deserved.

[uponit7771]

94. +1

[Cha]

100. First of all.. glad greenwald rightfully got his a$$ handed to him..

"My view is Russian surveillance is much more intrusive than what you have in the United States.”

But, snowden and putin are trying to whitewash Russia while constantly whining about the USA.



Journalistic death toll in Putin's Russia

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/mar/11/journalist-safety-vladimir-putin

[ucrdem]

5. History has never looked kindly on turncoats, whatever their motives.

From Brutus to Judas to Benedict Arnold, they invariably wind up on the villainy side of the ledger.

[99Forever]

9. And isn't it great that...

... Edward Snowden showed us that our very own government had an army of turncoats called the NSA, that ignored the Constitution and continues to ignore the Constitution and spy on it's own citizens with impunity?

You're right, turncoats really are scum.

[ucrdem]

12. He showed us a legally issued FISA warrant.

Neat.

[99Forever]

14. When scumbags write the "laws"...

... every crappy police state thing they do, magically becomes "legal."

I suggest you wake up and smell the propaganda or be prepared to spend the rest of your life on your knees.

[christx30]

19. +1

A judge can decide anything is legal. And if the decision is secret, or if no court will hear a case, no one can challenge him on it.
Everything is nice an legal. But it's still a crime.

[L0oniX]

20. Something about the people of Germany doing what was legal back when,,,

[99Forever]

22. Yep, and the slave owners here.

Same shit, different scumbags.

[sabrina 1]

117. Did you know that the FFs included 'jury nullification' as a tool in our judicial system

for the SOLE purpose of giving the people the POWER to overturn BAD LAWS.

They did that because they KNEW there would be people who would get into positions of power and write laws intended to oppress the people. It was brilliant in fact. To give the people that power. But along the way some power hungry people made it difficult for juries to even know they have that right.

Eg, Kings used to write laws, sometimes on the spur of the moment to make something an enemy had done that was perfectly LEGAL, ILLEGAL.

That is exactly what happened here around 2005 when Congress voted for the now infamous FISA AMENDMENT in order to make LEGAL Bush's ILLEGAL Spying on the American people. But that didn't change the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which IS the law of the land, did it?

So they can take their Secret Court Fisa Warrants, BULK WARRANTS btw, on millions of people, WHERE IS THE PROBABLE CAUSE? and SHOVE THEM. Without showing probable cause, those Secret Court rubber stamps, AFTER THE SPYING has occurred btw, are a farce and WILL be overturned as soon as we get people into office who have the guts to rid this country of Bush's anti-Constitutional phony 'laws'.

[reACTIONary]

156. +10 (nt)

[Logical]

13. LOL, so America is a mistake? nt

[ucrdem]

16. Why do I hate America, you mean?

Thought you'd never ask.

[Doctor_J]

28. Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg, Valerie Plame

You're right, the oligarchs, fascists, and criminals dislike those who expose them

[ProSense]

39. Wait,

"Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg, Valerie Plame"

...this Sibel Edmonds: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024228191

[arely staircase]

48. speaking of sibel edmonds exposing things

And an Oligarch Shall Lead Them: Omidyar, Greenwald & First Look Media’s Attack on the Future of the Press
By Siebel Edmonds

https://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/04/03/bfp-exclusive-and-an-oligarch-shall-lead-them-omidyar-greenwald-first-look-medias-attack-on-the-future-of-the-press/

[SunsetDreams]

85. wow! I had not read that before thank you!

That means that, judging by the current release rate, it will be another 36 years before the full scope of the NSA’s massive surveillance apparatus is actually revealed to the public.

Civil Rights attorney Stanley L. Cohen who has defended activist for over 30 years had this to say:

“Every time a journalist raises these arguments about—‘Oh, I’ve got agreements’ and ‘I’ve cut deals’—it is a blow against all journalists,” says Cohen, “because ultimately what protects the journalist from government over-reaching is the journalist’s privilege.

“He’s positioned himself very nicely,” Cohen concedes. “Greenwald apparently tries to be all things to all people. The real problem is he’s not only done damage to the journalist’s privilege, he’s also violating legal privilege. He picks and chooses what is all too convenient at various crossroads.

“I think there’s also some very serious confusion floating around here, because I heard people talk about—‘Well, he’s a lawyer.’ Well, he may be a lawyer, but Snowden is not his client. Greenwald needs to decide who the fuck he is. If he’s a lawyer, let him start practicing law. If he’s an agent, let him start making movies and get on with his life. If he’s a journalist, he needs to stop deciding what is in the best interest of the public’s right to know.”

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2014/04/03/bfp-exclusive-and-an-oligarch-shall-lead-them-omidyar-greenwald-first-look-medias-attack-on-the-future-of-the-press/

[zeemike]

30. A turncoat used to be one who turned against the constitution and rule of law.

but that has all been flipped on it's head now...now the turncoat is one who tells on those violating the constitution and rule of law...
These are strange times indeed....Orwellian comes to mind.

[Paulie]

36. Yeah, King George III agrees

[rhett o rick]

42. You are on the wrong side of this class war. You side with Gen Clapper and the authoritarians.

I guess you feel more warm and comfortable with a big strong authoritarian on your side.

The populace movement is underway. Plez join or get the hell out of the way.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. The Founders were "turncoats", too

History's written by the victors.

[grasswire]

75. absolutely

the ultimate "turncoats" against authoritarianism.

And they -- just like Ed Snowden -- chose liberty over tyranny.

And they -- just like Ed Snowden -- chose to offer up their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor so that others might also have liberty.

[JackRiddler]

126. You're talking about the NSA, CIA,

and other state-based enemies of the people here at home, right?

The ones who start and wage wars of aggression around the world, creating the very enemies they claim to "defend" against, right?

No, "history" will not look kindly on these. Of course, written history is a long process, constantly revisited with each moment of the present. In a distant enough future, it won't be written by Americans, any more than the history of Rome is written by Romans. I think one question with which they will grapple will be just how the scams and propaganda worked so well.

[grahamhgreen]

171. Of course you mean the NSA turncoats;)

[MohRokTah]

7. .

[riqster]

15. Meanwhile, the mislabeling of said ungulates continues apace.

[Autumn]

17. Recommended

[Octafish]

24. Well stated, grasswire.

Blew a lot of 5-amp fuses, too.

[grasswire]

25. lotta goats here, friend

Lotta goats.

[Octafish]

38. Speaking of Goats...

This is the kind of stuff you need reporter for...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=780909&mesg_id=782677



Thank heaven for DUe, good DUers and all the rest.

[baldguy]

27. With Vladimir Putin AND Rand Paul on his side, how could he be wrong?

[ProSense]

35. Welcome

back to DU.

[rhett o rick]

45. With Gen Clapper on your side how can you be wrong. You are choosing the side of

the oligarchs. I guess I understand. They promise you security and you are willing to give up your Constitutional rights for a nice hug from General Clapper.

[grasswire]

77. looks like some people never have read Sinclair Lewis. nt

[rhett o rick]

79. They are authoritarians. They worship the comfort that big daddy Gen Clapper gives them.

They are not open-minded, politically liberal people.

[Broward]

76. With Dick Cheney on your side how can you be wrong?

[joshcryer]

29. The personal attacks come from one side the most.

And that side really fails at substance.

[sheshe2]

34. ...

[Chan790]

37. The closest Edward Snowden will ever get to a hero...

is the federal agent that will eventually track him down and end this charade.

[stonecutter357]

147. Stop Judging and Criticizing People.

I think eddy is a TRAITOR and i don't like what the NSA is doing.
PS.How are you still posting after having a post hidden?

[stonecutter357]

143. K&R

this

[OnyxCollie]

184. Won't anyone think of Booz Allen Hamilton's profits!!!

[Rumold]

188. generic "Federal Agent" now a Hero

http://www.alternet.org/story/151468/5_outrageous_examples_of_fbi_intimidation_and_entrapment

the term "piece of shit" would be more appropriate

i guess your standards are different than mine

[MannyGoldstein]

50. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing that are the most dangerous.

Rec.

[SunsetDreams]

86. I couldn't agree more nt

[Number23]

102. You just won GD

Sorry for the crappy prize.

[SunsetDreams]

106. LOL

Gee thanks, I think

[Number23]

107. Your post was a thing of beauty.

And it's great seeing you around again.

[SunsetDreams]

108. It's good to see you too :)

[SidDithers]

118. And boom goes the dynamite...nt

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

148. Nailed it in one. nt

[msanthrope]

122. Indeed...makes my soul itch. nt

[bobduca]

125. Admitting you have a problem is the first step! Good Luck!

[msanthrope]

127. There you are! I assume you caught the reference and took offense.

Curious, that.

[bobduca]

164. Took offense? no, i am just glad you are on the road to recovery! n/t

[msanthrope]

174. So you didn't get the reference? Never play inside baseball

with a wiffle bat.

[bobduca]

177. I don't speak frozen-cavewoman-lawyer

maybe dumb it down a notch?

[blkmusclmachine]

52. ,

,

[Vashta Nerada]

54. Both sides need to realize it's not about Snowden anymore.

It's about the NSA domestic spying.

Let's discuss THAT issue.

Please.

[LiberalLovinLug]

150. What???

Don't you realize that Snowden left his girlfriend stranded!!!!!!!!!

Or that he is going to become really rich out of all of this (somehow....?)

Or that he is a narcissistic asshole?

Or that he loves the life of international spy and he couldn't wait to betray his country???

That he doesn't give a shit about what he revealed, he just wanted to get on the news??




Please....this silly little issue of the government lying about mass survielence on its own population and bringing that subject up for discussion to the public is soooooooooooooooooooo secondary you gotta just...........

[clg311]

63. And the people on the wrong side of history will applaud you in 20 years.

When it's safe. As they now do with Daniel Ellsberg and Martin Luther King.

[ProSense]

65. Funny,

"As they now do with Daniel Ellsberg and Martin Luther King."

...neither of them ran away and became tools for a foreign government.

MLK: Letter from a Birmingham Jail

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Welcome to DU.

[sheshe2]

67. MLK and Snowden on the same side of history???

Oh dear lord!

[SunsetDreams]

87. Please do not put

Snowden in the same category as Martin Luther King Jr.

It is no contest.

[clg311]

159. Thats easy to say now.

But he was disliked by most white people in the sixties.

[BenzoDia]

64. "Hey Putin, do you guys spy?". lmao

[SunsetDreams]

88. "Putty please tell me" nt

[RobertEarl]

104. What's not funny is

We asked Obama the same thing and he said the same thing, pretty much, as Putin did.

Of course, Obama has been back tracking from that ever since. He has, because he is a good guy and he realized his error.

So now Snowden has trapped Putin, too. Snowden is sharp and dedicated to uncovering this mess, and we all, Obama especially, owes Snowden. Of course Obama can't go there, but you would think we plebes, all of us, could give Snowden his due. But no, because Snowden made Obama look bad, he's become a bad guy. Rather sad spectacle from way too many on this thread. Thank Gawd there are still some constitutional patriots left on DU, eh?

[arely staircase]

112. if snowden ever "traps" or otherwise embarrasses putin

He will be as good as dead.

[treestar]

114. oh please

the difference between our system and Russia's makes the question impossible to be parallel.

[BenzoDia]

186. Trapped Putin? Are you serious?

He runs the media coverage in his country and his agencies have direct access to all communications that go through their ISPs.

Trapped Putin lol. Thanks for the laugh!

[sabrina 1]

89. The Left is always on the Right Side of history and once again, I am happy to be on that side.

I do love how certain issues have exposed so many who we once were fooled by, both elected and not elected. It's good to know where we stand, makes it easier to 'move forward'.

[treestar]

113. the exaggeration

is priceless.

[mainer]

119. Fascinating new VANITY FAIR article about him

The Putin connection sounds like it was sheer desperation on Snowden's part. He didn't want to get stuck in Russia -- he'd hoped to go to Iceland. But US pressure made it impossible to get asylum there. He couldn't stay in Hong Kong, and his flight out connected through Moscow.

[sendero]

120. Another thread...

.. that lets me identify more toadies, apologists, paid disruptors and idiots for my Ignore list. Pretty soon, the intelligence level around here is going to be "apparently" much higher.

And those who want to impugn Snowden because he is not perfect, please add JFK and MLK to your list of failures to be shunned because each had serious moral failings that I won't bother to enumerate.

[Autumn]

121. Edward Snowden proved that the two most powerful men in the world are liars.

"Those who stand for the Constitution and courage are clearly separated from those who don't, by their own words." Yes their own words.

Thank you.

[ProSense]

128. Edward Snowden fixed healthcare.gov.

"Edward Snowden proved that the two most powerful men in the world are liars."

He didn't prove shit. No one in the world knew that Putin was lying all these years when he denied and continues to deny Russia's human rights abuses. I mean, Putin denied there were Russian troops in the Ukraine.

Where do the leaders of North Korea, China, Iran and other countries fit into the "most powerful" equation?

What Snowden did was prove himself a liar for having said this:

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.

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

I mean, clearly that statement was part of his grand plan to hold Putin accountable.

LOL!

[Autumn]

131. Good lord.

[ProSense]

133. Yeah, I LMAO at every attempt to elevate Snowden to saving the world.

[randome]

132. He was just a young and impressionable lad when he said that.

"Youthful indiscretion", don't you know? Just like when he said leakers should be shot in the balls.
[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]

[reACTIONary]

151. +10 (nt)

[randome]

129. Snowden: "My mission is finished."

Also: he could spy on the President if he wanted.
Also: PRISM is a means for the NSA to collect everything.
Also: "I saw things."

Oh! Oh! And my favorite of all time: "I am not here to hide from justice." Said from his undisclosed location in Hong Kong.


[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]

[Progressive dog]

130. Thank you Eddie for clearly demonstrating your courage

by fleeing from justice. The justice system you fled is spelled out in that Constitution your apologists claim you support.

[MannyGoldstein]

134. Torture is justice?

A secret kill list, kept from the judiciary, is justice?

Secret laws are justice?

Some of us don't think so.

[Progressive dog]

135. Eddie had nothing to do with outing torture,

and the new (only five years ago) President ended it. He repudiated the Bush torture memos, in case you hadn't heard.

[MannyGoldstein]

139. If Snowden is captured by today's DOJ, he'll have a lot to do with torture

See Chelsea Manning's case for details.

A question for you: is torture illegal under US law?

[Progressive dog]

141. Moscow Eddie had nothing to do with outing torture

I can understand why his fan base would want to pretend he did.
I'm assuming your question was meant as filler. I think I already mentioned that Obama repudiated the Bush torture memos.

[MannyGoldstein]

142. First off, I never claim he did.

I don't think anyone else on DU did either. Either link to an example, or I'll,assume that such a thing doesn't exist.

The point, of course, is that if Snowden returns to the US he'll be brutally tortured.

Repudiating torture means little unless the practices end, and the guilty are prosecuted. Some practices have ended; some have not. The guilty are safe. And our president has embraced, and even expanded, the practice of bypassing the Judiciary in meting out whatever justice his whims desire.

[Progressive dog]

153. So, Eddie Snowden claims he'll be tortured

and his fans believe him.
Then without evidence those fans sometimes try to pretend that Obama is just as bad because he hasn't sought revenge.
Torture and this

meting out whatever justice his whims desire

are not the same.
Sniveling Snowden needs to come home and face a jury of his peers.

[MannyGoldstein]

166. Any fairly sentient human being knows this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

Either you're being willfully obtuse, or you're simply obtuse. I suspect the former. But either way, no progress will be made.

Have a nice day.

[Progressive dog]

169. I didn't think Ellsberg had claimed to have been torured

It's funny when you use the word obtuse when referring to others.

[reACTIONary]

162. Secret laws?

What secret laws? The patriot act is not a secret. The existence and function of the FISA court is not a secret. We do have secret appropriations for secret defense and research programs, but I would not characterize that as constituting "secret laws".

All nations have secrets, it is necessary for the protection and advantage of their people in the world. All businesses have secrets. All families have secrets. All individuals have secrets. In fact, secrecy is what "privacy" is all about. Secrecy is a necessity in life and there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with it.

[MannyGoldstein]

165. Someone better tell the DOJ

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130708/01055723732/doj-says-public-has-no-right-to-know-about-secret-laws-feds-use-to-spy-us.shtml

[reACTIONary]

173. Judicial rulings concerning...

... the specifics of particular national security cases do not constitute "secret laws". Neither do all the other judicial rulings that are not publically released... testimony before a grand jury ...sealed indictments ...court approved settlements that include non-disclosure clauses ...the names of "Jane Doe" minors who are victims of criminals and whose names are kept confidential. Nor are appropriations funding secret defense programs.

Just because "tech dirt" uses the phrase "secret laws" in a headline does not mean there are secret laws.

[MannyGoldstein]

179. Question: why do we need to show ID before we board a plane?

Ah... I'll make it easy: http://www.wired.com/2006/11/supreme_court_a/

[reACTIONary]

191. Gee, I didn't know...

.... that you have to show ID to board a plane. Some secret law.

"Gilmore's lawyer, William Simpich, said if the government wants to enforce regulations, it should disclose them in writing to the public... The court rejected that argument, however, saying airport signs and airline workers give adequate notice that providing identification is required to fly."

Gilmore is one of those LOL-Libertarians who think every little inconvenience he has to suffer for the sake public health and safety is dangerous threat to human rights and liberty.

[NCTraveler]

145. The NSA is currently subverting the Constitution and we must fight against it.

We need to bring the fight back to where it belongs, the lap of the NSA. Snowden is an extremely beneficial stooge(to the citizens of the us) and currently Putins lapdog. We should forever be thankful for Snowdens original actions. The Snowden crap is taking away from the problem, the NSA. As can be seen here. You op is thanking Snowden for the separation of the sheep from the goats. That connection cannot be made logically. It truly makes no sense. If I believe that the NSA is currently working outside of the parameters of the constitution, have written my representatives and signed petitions, yet have the intelligence to see that Snowden is currently Putins tool, then I am a sheep. That is truly what you are saying. It makes no logical sense at all. Get back to what is important, the blatant abuse of the NSA. Snowden is in another country working for their leader. Stop making it all about a single person, being used by an oppressive government, and get it back to the issue.

[ProSense]

146. Snowden's question and op-ed were attempts to whitewash Russian spying by equating it to the NSA.

Snowden's question and op-ed were attempts to whitewash Russian spying by equating it to the NSA.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024843557

[merrily]

152. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that that is 100% true, it has nothing to

do with the activities of the USG.

[NuclearDem]

157. I support NSA reforms and oppose unwarranted surveillance.

And yet I still can't stand the asshole that said Russia stands up for human rights.

I guess that means I hate the Constitution.

[bvar22]

163. To be fair, that isn't NEAR half.

It is less than 30 hardcore authoritarians who don't believe in Government Accountable to The People,
or Democracy as it is called.

And the OP is correct:
The Internet is forever,
and the Pro-NSA and Government Secrecy swarm is on the WRONG side of history,
and have made conspicuous asses of themselves here on DU.


You will know them by their WORKS.

[bvar22]

190. AND...The Resuts of the ALERT:

To be fair, that isn't NEAR half.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4843805

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Fawning agreement with a post that calls out half of DU as "stupid" because they disagree with the OP. And then takes it a step further by not only calling out the posters in the other thread but also calling them "hard core authoritarians." A cogent argument discussion does not involve personal attacks and name calling of people simply because they disagree with you or you them.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 19, 2014, 07:31 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see poster arguing that it is a small MINORITY..
"that isn't NEAR half. It is less than 30 hardcore authoritarians... "
is not fawning, less than 30 on a board this size is tiny, and they even add LESS.. this strikes me as a malicious alert...

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: With another two paragraphs, the alerter might have made his case.

Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough with the insults.

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank You Jury.
People who spend their days at DU throwing acid
shouldn't have such sensitive skins.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises or excuses.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

167. But..but..Snowden has done so much harm to America....it's just nobody can tell us what it is.

Whereas, the NSA has done so much good for America...it's just nobody can tell us what it is.

[DirkGently]

168. Aww. They're just mad about the Pulitzer.

- The "It's not news" meme is dead.

- The "It was all legal because something something FISA court 'case law' is dead.

- The "Greenwald is crazy in his unfair hatred for Obama" thing is dead.

- The Bolivian plane map thing was just flat funny

Greenwald won. The Guardian won. Snowden has not won, because if he comes back here, he's going to a black site with a Cheney-approved hot and cold running water board system.

But his acts have been largely vindicated by the world. No Snowden, no Pulitzer.

So now we're back to another childish version of guilt by association, and a feeble hope that Putin's bad behavior can somehow retroactively undo the undeniable fact that Snowden's revelations have been greeted by the world as a good thing*

You would think people that were so wrong for long, about every single thing, would maybe stop. Would maybe say, "Yeah, you know, we probably don't want limitless, no-oversight government spying on Americans. That would really bother us if a Republican was in office. In fact it really DID bother us with a Republican in office."

But apparently the whole Ukraine thing has re-kindled hopes of retroactively putting all that toothpaste back in the tube. I eagerly await the theory on how he personally invaded the Crimea.

Good luck with that, half-dozen people on DU.





* even though in some tangential way it might reflect in less than a completely positive way on President Obama, which of course, is the lens through which every event in the world must be scrutinized.

[truebrit71]

176. These threads are excellent for exposing the authoritarian dems...

...you know...the hypocritical bastards that would be screaming blue bloody murder has this been exposed under a republican president...they cannot resist with their snark and their smilies and get zapped onto the ignored list quicker than a skeeter into a bug zapper on a mid-summers eve...

[ProSense]

178. Good for exposing Snowden fans.

It's all about Snowden, defender of the Constitution and hero for eternity.

Because, you know, if you're not applauding Snowden and holding him up such, you're on the "wrong side of history."

That includes all those opposed to NSA overreach, but think Snowden broke the law, went beyond simply exposing NSA domestic activities and/or is Putin's tool.

LOL!

[LordGlenconner]

180. What a pious barf fest

The melodrama exhibited by some over this mook borders on the comically absurd.

And the "you're either with us or you hate democracy" purity test sounds a bit authoritarian to me.

Litmus tests are for people wholly incapable of understanding nuance.

[Corruption Inc]

187. Too bad kitty cat pictures are way more important to Amurikans

than justice, freedom, democracy and human rights.