The Edward Snowden Documentary Accidentally Exposes His Lies

[JaneyVee]

-HUGE snip-

But what about Edward Snowden himself? Poitras's camerawork humanizes Snowden effectively. We see Snowden huddled over his computer in a bathrobe, Snowden squirming awkwardly in his chair, and Snowden concerned for his abandoned girlfriend. Poitras’s Snowden is human, geeky, and at times, even endearing. But this movie has more than just cute shots of Snowden in bed; we also hear some of thoughts, and these are crucial to piecing together what exactly drives him. To his supporters, Snowden is a heroic whistleblower. To his critics, he is a “grandiose narcissist,” “a paranoid libertarian,” or perhaps Putin’s useful idiot. Despite Poitras’ best efforts, the movie confirms the views of his critics.

Throughout this film, as he does elsewhere, Snowden couches his policy disagreements in grandiose terms of democratic theory. But Snowden clearly doesn’t actually give a damn for democratic norms. Transparency and the need for public debate are his battle-cry. But early in the film, he explains that his decision to begin leaking was motivated by his opposition to drone strikes. Snowden is welcome to his opinion on drone strikes, but the program has been the subject of extensive and fierce public debate. This is a debate that, thus far, Snowden’s and his allies have lost. The president’s current drone strikes enjoy overwhelming public support. So citing his opposition to a widely debated policy as his motivation for increasing transparency is, well, odd. But it’s also illustrative. Snowden’s leaks aren’t primarily aimed at returning transparency or triggering a public debate; they are about creating his preferred policy outcomes, outcomes that usually involve a weaker state. This becomes even more apparent as Greenwald explains how he intends not only to release information about government programs, but present it in as “brutal” and alarmist a light as possible. The leaks were aimed not just to inform, but to frighten.

A similar logic explains Snowden’s bizarre justifications for seeking asylum in Russia. One of the movie’s central claims is that an idealistic Snowden came to Hong Kong “not knowing what was going to happen” next, but with a noble openness to the likelihood of his own arrest. This is believable and even admirable. But what comes after is a tale of narcissism and cowardice. Egged on by Greenwald and Guardian journalist Ewen MacAskill, who constantly ask him when he will “go public,” and a WikiLeaks community eager to hold him up as a banner of resistance, Snowden develops a world-historical view of himself and a twisted understanding of what constitutes bravery. Suddenly, and without explanation, keeping Snowden out of the reach of the American government becomes an issue of paramount importance. “Fuck the skulking!” declares Snowden, while Greenwald urges him to “feel the power” of their bold stand against oppression. Shortly thereafter, Snowden practices hiding under a green umbrella and sneaks onto a flight for Russia.

Purportedly, Snowden will not return to face American justice because he would not receive a “fair trial.” But in the movie, Snowden lawyer Ben Wizner admits that his use of the term is somewhat “unusual.” He accepts that Snowden won’t be denied due process, access to counsel or an impartial jury. Rather his complaint centers on the fact that the law doesn’t include a justification defense for leaks made “in the public interest.” Neither, of course, do many other such prohibitions (murder, theft, littering…). As Wizner explains, the trial is unfair because the law “eliminates any kind of defense that Snowden might offer.” In other words, the trial is “unfair” because the evidence conclusively establishes that Snowden committed the crime. Orwell would be proud...

The rest: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119994/citizenfour-review-snoweden-just-wants-be-heard?utm_content=buffer9cda8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Despite this review, I still want to see it. Especially since it will be playing at the theater about 1000ft from where I live. Also, NYTimes gave it a pretty good review.

[UTUSN]

1. Rec to the review, nyet to seeing him in a bathrobe or in bed or to his Deep Thoughts. n/t

[QuestionAlways]

96. To evaluate Edward Snowden,

You must imagine Ted Cruz is President, or George Bush or Richard Nixon. How comfortable would you be with the NSA programs? To me Snowden is a hero.

[UTUSN]

100. And I respect your opinion without name-calling. n/t

[Aerows]

102. That wasn't name calling

That was disagreement with your opinion.

We are still allowed that, right?

[UTUSN]

104. Sheesh, I didn't say this poster was name-calling. I was making the point from the different

threads, where *I* and others who disagree with the SNOWDEN-GREENWALD fans are NAME CALLED "authoritarian" and other dastardly things for MY/we having OUR opinions. I was saying that I was RESPECTING (did you miss that?!1) this poster's opinion that was stated without name-calling.

Please, let this sub-thing go away, no further thing to say from me here. Thanks.

[Aerows]

105. You brought up the charge of namecalling

I most certainly did not.

I just replied truthfully to what you were trying to do.

[UTUSN]

108. & now, in farewell, I will bring up "flame baiting" which is what you are doing.

A very prominent characteristic of which is to ignore Replies that address your "concern" and for the flamer to continue to attack. Goodbye!1

[Aerows]

110. Oh my

I'm flamebaiting for addressing something front and center while not being insulting to you personally.

That's a new definition of "flamebaiting" for me. Maybe you meant "I'm offended because my "argument" was shown to not hold water, and I'm mad because you pointed that out."

[UTUSN]

112. & a 2nd characteristic of flame-baiting is to continue and continue and continue

I'm sure you will have the last ("winning&quot word 'cause I'm leaving you to entertain yourself.

[Aerows]

115. Have a lovely evening

That's my last word.

[kelliekat44]

2. ISIS or ISIL behavior and their recruitment of homegrown terrorist wannabes rests the NSA case. nt

[MFrohike]

27. Oh ok

So, if one guy with a hatchet completely validates the surveillance state, I'm guessing the hundreds of al-Qaeda admirers arrested over the last 13 years completely vindicate W's internal security policies. Good to know.

[riderinthestorm]

3. I haven't read the article yet but the very first paragraph of your snip is a lie

The drone program was secret until Clapper fessed up to it in January 2014 during a Congressional investigation.

Before that time it was a covert CIA program.

[JaneyVee]

17. It doesn't say the drone program wasn't a CIA program.

[riderinthestorm]

26. The drone program couldn't be reasonably debated until it was exposed...by whistleblowers

Because it was secret until January 2014.

[ucrdem]

150. Yes, a whistleblower named Obama, in May 2012, speaking on the record to the NYT

through dozens of named subordinates. Read allllll about it:

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

-- NYT, May 29, 2012

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

[BillZBubb]

4. Right wing BS.

Orwell would be proud all right. Proud of what Snowden did, not what the ninnies attempting to smear him are doing.

[JaneyVee]

6. NewRepublic is a liberal publication.

[enough]

9. Surely you jest. (nt)

[GeorgeGist]

36. That's rich.

[deutsey]

61. +1

[Cha]

133. "Rich" "Study: Putting Women in Charge Makes Companies More Successful/We Already Know the Winner of

Next Month's Election: Obamacare"

Yeah, a couple of New Republic articles.. not RW.

[Cha]

132. "Study: Putting Women in Charge Makes Companies More Successful/We Already Know the Winner of Next

Month's Election: Obamacare"

A couple of stories from their site.. not exactly RW like the poster claims.

[sabrina 1]

146. It poses as a 'liberal' publication. But it is a Center Right anti-Left,

Third Way publication. We knew that as far back as the early 2000s, as evidenced in this article from 2004, among others:

So Who Says the New Republic is Liberal

The article goes on to call the New Republic a "leading Democratic journal" (despite being owned by a hard-core Republican and a Zell Miller-Democrat who donated $2,000 to the Bush campaign).

And while the "house divided" story line might've been salient for the war issue, you better believe it will be trotted out all of 2004 as TNR bashes our nominee.

That's the problem with the New Republic. It's not "liberal". It's not a "Democratic journal". It's a center-right publication, that while it has its roster of excellent writers, still has more in common with the Weekly Standard and National Review than with the Nation or American Prospect.

I thought this had been established at least a decade ago. But apparently not.

[baldguy]

149. The responses to your post display just how far out of touch Greenwald's fan base is.

[QC]

171. So liberal they hired Andrew Sullivan to be their editor!

So liberal they promoted Charles Murray's The Bell Curve!

So liberal they waged war against Hillary's health care reform proposal!

[randome]

8. It's a movie review. Did Greenwald urge him to greater urgency?

Did he say that the drone strikes were his motive for releasing information about the NSA?

Snowden is history. Actually, this movie cements that fact. Like any long-running TV drama, once the feature film comes out, you know it's over.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. You mean the ninnies trying to white wash what he did....

you do know that ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.....so since Snowden doesn't even qualify under ignorance that what he was doing was illegal.....he is an outlaw and should stand trial. Even Cliven Bundy THINKS what he is doing is justifiable...

[BillZBubb]

50. Only an apologist for the Stasi or the national security state would make that claim.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. yeah right.....musta struck a nerve!

yeah he is so above that criticism while hiding behind Putin's nickers!

[Cha]

130. No, it's Reality but Greenwald/Snowden can't stand handle that.

[randome]

5. Even in Snowden's movie, Greenwald can't stop himself from being at center stage.

Even if only for a while, which is his sneaky passive-aggressive manner of saying, "Look at me. Admire me."

I don't think Snowden will ever stop being so trusting as to be someone's patsy. It's a shame.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[elias49]

62. It isn't "Snowden's movie"

It's Laura Poitras' movie.

[randome]

78. It should have been Snowden's movie if he had anything new to say.

The drone stuff is just an afterthought. The latest revision to the past.

Granted, Greenwald was a part of Snowden's life but it sounds to me like he was too much a part. Snowden should have been calling more of the shots.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

79. It's Laura Poitras' movie about Snowden. nt

[elias49]

80. Duh. nt

[Luminous Animal]

107. Which, for some reason should not have included Greenwald? Question..

Last edited Sun Oct 26, 2014, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)

what would you do if a source on Snowden's caliber approached you?

[ucrdem]

151. Um, you said Greedwald.

[Luminous Animal]

175. Thanks. Tipsy.

[randome]

156. I know what I would do.

Since I wouldn't be qualified to understand all the legal and technical ramifications, I'd encourage him to be a whistleblower, not a spy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Luminous Animal]

181. So, you would encourage him to have his life destroyed ala Binney and Drake.

How, um, thoughtful and kind.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Shrug.

While it sounds like the reviewer is a 'critic', I don't really see any problems with anything written in the excerpt. I never expected Snowden to be anything but human, and humans are sometimes self-contradictory, sometimes petty, sometimes narcissistic.

But it’s also illustrative. Snowden’s leaks aren’t primarily aimed at returning transparency or triggering a public debate; they are about creating his preferred policy outcomes, outcomes that usually involve a weaker state.

Isn't that what everyone ACTUALLY wants? Their own 'preferred policy outcomes'? Snowden decided to 'work outside the system' and to commit things the government views as criminal acts in order to achieve his goals, since it's become blindingly obvious in retrospect that no one working within the system had any intention of allowing the info he made public to ever come to light, and that 'both sides' of our political spectrum likewise are all for drone strikes, NSA data vacuuming, and the like. He knew that the only way to make the info public was to break laws, so he did. Knowing that he will simply be tried, found guilty, and thrown in jail to rot, I see no incentive for him to put himself in the way of the American legal system, which no doubt irritates his critics no end.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. If this is the case...

how does it not constitute terrorism?

"they are about creating his preferred policy outcomes, outcomes that usually involve a weaker state."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. People, possibly even you, have called it that from the start.

I don't care what you call it, and I'm pretty sure Snowden doesn't care.

So have fun calling it that.

As far as I'm concerned, when 'the State' goes all Big Brotherish, the citizens benefit by 'the State' being weakened. We don't need to become another autocratic, oligarchic kleptocracy.

[MFrohike]

40. That's a stupid argument

EVERYTHING in politics is about creating your own preferred policy outcomes. You can despise Snowden for a lot of reasons, but don't trot out the Bush terrorism bullshit to do it. It's lazy and dishonest.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. OH now he is a politician? Then he should have run for office instead of committing crimes to prove

it....GET IT? He is a hypocrite that is using blackmailing the govt to get "his policy outcomes" instead of doing what WE do....VOTE!


and here we are....still waiting....hopefully not on baited breath....for Greenwald or Snowden or someone to give us the big "reveal" we have been told exists over and over and over again.....yet here we are still twiddling thumbs waiting for it....

Cue Jeopardy theme again Sam!

[LawDeeDah]

52. +++Excellent+++

[MFrohike]

53. Way to double down on stupid

It's too bad MLK didn't have you as an adviser or we'd never have gotten the Civil Rights or Voting Rights Acts. Too bad A. Phillip Randolph was such a pushover that he never would have thought of threatening a president, during wartime, with a national strike if the president didn't do something for civil rights.

If politicians were the only ones who practiced politics, we'd still be a colony. Politics is far too important to be left to our ne'er do well employees.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. you are comparing him to MLK now?

GMAFB!!!!

MLK didn't run to Russia....MLK went to jail for what he believed....several times!

PATHETIC

[MFrohike]

69. Way to triple down

The comparison wasn't to MLK, but to two people who practiced politics without being elected. You know, two people who did something you said was terrorism?

As for Snowden, if you can read, I'm not interested in defending him. I'm interested in slapping around your stupid argument that he's a terrorist by attempting to influence government policy through non-violent, though definitely not legal, means. It's a stupid and lazy Bush-style argument. It's nothing but dishonest hysteria and that shit has no place in American politics unless you really want more government by drama.

[treestar]

63. We may want it but don't feel entitled to go outside the law to get it

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

95. Well, that's the whole argument here, isn't it?

When 'law' is used to support injustices, should we defer to the law, or go outside it to attempt to end injustices?

The 'law' has been used, time and again by this and the former administration, to keep the public from knowing about torture, murder, kidnappings, and all sorts of sleazy behaviour that is still 'legal', or for which someone has come up with excuses to pretend it is 'legal', and to allow everyone who ordered such to avoid any sort of prosecution for war crimes committed. And to persecute (and prosecute) anyone who tries to let the public know about these things. Despite supposed 'better protections' for "whistleblowers", the administration has found ways to legally go after anyone and everyone who dares to try and let some sunlight in on the sleazy underbelly of what our government gets up to. So I'm not shocked that some people say 'screw it', and go outside the law.

Some folks are willing to spend decades trying to work within 'the law', others don't have that patience to see 'legal' torture, 'legal' murder go on for more decades, and decide to go around it. And I'm not heartbroken about it.

You know who deserves to be spending far more decades in jail than Snowden or Assange? George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Condaleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the war criminals that the President decided we shouldn't bother to even investigate for the war crimes they committed. And their cellmates should be the guys trampling all over the Constitutional rights of hundreds of millions of Americans in the name of 'security from terror'.

But instead, we're told to suck it up, be good little citizens, let them take away our Constitutional rights, let them start whatever wars they want, kill whoever they please, and, oh, by the way, be mad at the people who dared to uncover the vileness being done because they uncovered it 'illegally'.

When everyone from the President on down is more than happy to ignore war crimes, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over Snowden.

The fish rots from the head. Get a President who actually is willing to jail the rich and powerful who commit crimes and I'll maybe start worrying about small fry like Snowden.

[treestar]

119. Under our government, the law deserves a basic respect.

And should only be ignored in extreme cases. And the person who flees the country and the operation of the law is not making a real stand. Thus his exaggerated claims of persecution. He claims to be persecuted because he doesn't agree with duly passed laws under our Constitution, and to have greater rights in the Russian Federation.

I lean red recently we are restricted from appealing habeas corpus petitions. Congress wanted to stop frivolous ones. What an unfair law. So should I advise such a client to flee the country? Rather than face up to the law? He/she would have just as much right as Eddie does.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

138. I think war crimes, torture, murder, kidnapping are pretty extreme.

One that goes beyond 'basic respect'.

When we use 'law' to justify the ability of our government to do all of the things we use law to stop private citizens from doing, the law no longer deserves respect. It's either for all of us, or it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Should you 'advise' a client to flee? No, but you should put the reality in which we live in front of clients, and let them decide what to do on their own. We all need to make our own decisions in life, knowing as much of what's actually going on as possible.

[cantbeserious]

10. Reads As A Character Assassination Hit Piece - Author Has An Axe To Grind

eom

[baldguy]

24. Funny that Greenwald's fan can't recognize that he does too.

[cantbeserious]

31. His Axe To Grind - Tear Down The Establishment - Says So Plainly At TED

eom

[Cha]

131. It's a reality based review and snowden's fans call it an "axe to grind".. LOL

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Jews were put in concentration camps legally.

It was all done under German law, at least until 1942 or so.

[randome]

12. Monitoring foreign communications equals 'Death to all Jews!' Got it.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

15. I said that?

Really?

[randome]

18. Pretty much. If those 2 statements are not equivalent, why did you compare them, Mr. Godwin?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[MannyGoldstein]

21. The point, my friend, is that

just because things are *legal* doesn't make them *right*.

[randome]

22. Okay, it's a good point.

But was the NSA listening in on foreign communications really worth the drama? Especially since Snowden never mentioned drones as his reason for leaks until now.

And it doesn't even make sense that he would 'punish' the NSA. All the NSA does is provide information to the military or other intelligence agencies. It's not like they have their own drones skimming the skies.

Was Terrorist B where they said he was? Snowden doesn't dispute any of that, does he?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

85. You Make It Sound Like Ordinary Americans Are Not In The Cross-Hairs Of The NSA...

I think that THAT... is where the complaint lies.

[randome]

87. And where is the evidence supporting that?

Is it in the idea that the NSA, while monitoring foreign suspects, will almost always also collect data belonging to an American citizen?

Just as you can't hear only one side of a wiretapped phone conversation.

Why didn't Snowden provide proof of this 24/7 spying on us all? All he did at first was present a legal warrant and a Powerpoint slide that he thought showed that PRISM was the butt-ugly spy tool that would make us all take up arms against our government.

It didn't because he was wrong about PRISM. Unless you subscribe to the idea that all the employees and executives of Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. are lying when they say PRISM is not used for that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

89. Go Here:

Link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

And: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

And: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

[randome]

91. None of those articles supports the idea that the NSA is targeting American citizens.

In the course of monitoring foreign communications, if they discover that an American might be engaged in drug trafficking, what should they do with that evidence? Throw it out? If a crime is suspected, it makes sense to turn over the relevant information to the appropriate agency just as any other agency would do.

If you heard someone in a coffee house discussing killing his wife, what would you do? Ignore it because it's not your job? Or notify the appropriate authorities?

As to the DEA hiding the source of the information, well, there is such a thing as appropriate national security. It's probably taken too far in many cases but consider the idea that revealing that the NSA is monitoring Terrorist A tips off Terrorist A and allows him/her to better hide their activities.

So long as the DEA has evidence that stands up in court on its own, I have no problem with this.

And if the NSA was just routinely monitoring American citizens, why do so many drug traffickers continue to operate freely?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

93. You Have Reading Comprehension Issues...

Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans



Look...I have no clue what someone like you needs as "proof"...

For me... after watching 50 years of watching bullshit lies, cover-ups, and non-investigations...

If it walks like a duck...



P.S.... What type of "proof" would satisfy you ?

[randome]

94. "...program used to investigate Americans..." does not address how the NSA came upon this evidence.

If their job is to monitor foreign communications -and it is- then absent evidence to the contrary, that program can be -okay, not assumed, but postulated to include evidence that came their way during the normal course of their activities.

If Snowden had found evidence that the NSA targeted someone who was not engaged in a conversation with a foreigner, then I would wholeheartedly support more drastic changes to the agency.

What would that hypothetical evidence look like? I don't know, maybe an IP address that could not be linked to a foreign suspect. A directive from someone higher up that Mr. Sanders has been acting suspicious and should be monitored. A list of all Americans' names and email addresses.

But no smoking guns from Snowden after a year and a half.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[WillyT]

99. And...

Culture Against Domestic Spying Begins to Shift at the NSA

Sep 12

Wiebe Declaration, Pg 3

Ex-NSA Analyst J. Kirk Wiebe recalls: "everything changed at the NSA after the attacks on September 11. The prior approach focused on complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA&quot .

The post-September 11 approach was that NSA could circumvent federal statutes and the Constitution as long as there was some visceral connection to looking for terrorists." While another ex-NSA analyst also remembers: "The individual liberties preserved in the US Constitution were no longer a consideration at the NSA."

Link: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

PDF: https://www.eff.org/document/wiebe-declaration-support-plaintiffs-motion



Again: "The individual liberties preserved in the US Constitution were no longer a consideration at the NSA."

[randome]

134. Yeah, those Bush days were something, weren't they?

Someone's statement about the Constitution is not 'evidence' by any stretch of the imagination.

The FISA amendments that Obama ushered in were designed to make sure those abuses no longer occur.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

117. Specious comments

seem to be the forte of those that want to defend the surveillance of US citizens.

That comment is worst than most, and the poster should be ashamed of themselves.

[treestar]

66. There's something about Eddie that brings out the exaggeration gene

He does it, and every one of his admirers has to do it, too. No filter and no moderation. Lower on the thread we see people utterly disgusted by the idea of someone not believing Eddie is the best person ever.

[randome]

76. It isn't only the GOP that lacks leaders. So does the Democratic party.

We have a better leader in Obama than the GOP has but it's not enough. So, yeah, people pin their hopes on 'heroes-on-the-spot', hoping for the slate to be wiped clean so we can start over.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fred Drum]

77. irony

did someone ever say that snowden is

"the best person ever"

or are you exaggerating

[treestar]

120. Yes, I know people like to argue they did not use the exact words

But he had been lauded as hero, savior of democracy and called a Paul Revere figure here on DU.

So if you don't like those words, we'll say disagreement that Eddie is a hero, a Paul Revere figure.

[Fred Drum]

126. yes, i know people like to exaggerate

"No filter and no moderation"

generally it makes ones argument weaker

such as yours

[Logical]

140. You must have misunderstood her point. Legal does not mean correct. IM if you need more info. nt

[Thinkingabout]

13. Within the interviews and articles written by Greenwald are several

Discrepancies and does not require a degree in truth telling. At one time it was to reveal to the American public what was happening but listeners already had this information.

[randome]

16. And it took all this time for Snowden to reveal the earth-shattering reason for his leaks.

Cue dramatic music.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Thinkingabout]

20. Well, its one story yesterday and today it is about the drones, guess it will be another reason

Tomorrow.

[sendero]

14. As soon as they start on the "fair trial"..

... bullshit you see their biases like a herpes sore on the lips.

ANYONE REMOTELY FAMILIAR with what happened to his "peers" knows that there is no such thing as a fair trial for those who have pissed off and embarrassed and proven the powerful to be liars.

[riderinthestorm]

19. As charged under the Espionage Act, Snowden has zero chance at a fair trial.

The author of this piece is clearly either grossly misinformed or lying.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. and that is what all criminals think...

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. What a lot of noncriminals think as well.

Unless, of course, you think everyone is a criminal, in which case you need to monitor all their communications and, oh, waitasec, our government already does...

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. leave Snowden ALONE!!!

[OnyxCollie]

23. Snowden will receive due process only if it is "feasible."

And if it's not feasible, the government will just kill him.

Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law
Chicago ~ Monday, March 5, 2012
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2012/ag-speech-1203051.html

Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles.

~snip~

Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.

[randome]

25. Right. Snowden has to hide because the government will kill him.

Assange has to hide because the government will kill him. Greenwald needs to stay in Brazil because he's afraid of...something, maybe the IRS.

How much more evidence does anyone need that these guys are all narcissistic buffoons who can't ever admit they might be wrong about something?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. I don't think it's 'will', I think it's 'might'.

The government would be happy enough just to let them rot in jail for decades too.

[randome]

35. Happy enough to let them rot where they trapped themselves, too.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Luminous Animal]

42. His girlfriend is with him now so his rotting is likely to be significantly more pleasant.

[randome]

45. That's possible. I admit to being surprised she went to Russia.

Maybe it's true love or maybe it's something else. Give it some more time to see what it's about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

186. She does not live there. She visits. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

111. Funny the warm and fuzzies some have just because they like the guy sitting at the helm.

Had we a R in the WH during these revelations, there would be NO supporters of the NSA and related company on DU.

It's so predictable it's actually pathetic.

Snowden would be dissapeared given the chance.

[Fred Drum]

127. pathetic is the right answer (NT)

[Aerows]

118. No

"Will" is accurate.

[woo me with science]

38. Smear, smear, smear.

It was definitely the use of the word, "grandiose" that will convince people Snowden is a poopyhead this time!

*And* convince them that mass surveillance rulez!!1!!!!!1

[font size=3]The relentlessness of the smear machine against the whistleblower is directly proportional to the seriousness of the revealed crimes committed against us by our own government. [/font size]

[GoneFishin]

39. There's no substance here. Just throwing poop at Ed Snowden, hoping some sticks.

A lame, impotent smear job.

[KoKo]

128. The usual...crap thrown at Snowden/Greenwald...but on a Dem Site

it's particularly offensive. It does make one wonder to see that...

[Luminous Animal]

41. It's gotten great reviews all over the place. Nearly all paint Snowden in quite glowing

terms. A point of information, the author of that review used to work at the Lawfare blog. The owner of Lawfare is a proponent of the NSA and he and Greenwald have had quite a few run ins over the years.

[riderinthestorm]

43. Here's a link to the updated national release of Citizenfour

https://citizenfourfilm.com/see-the-film

Chicago - 10/31!



I can't wait!

[Luminous Animal]

46. It's here in San Francisco. I plan on seeing in tomorrow or Monday. I'm very excited to see it, too!

[ucrdem]

44. TNR gives team Snowball too much credit.

RW hater signs onto Neocon sabotage operation #849, which happens to click with the ODS crowd. There's no "argument" and no "furious indictment of the American security state." The thing has stunk of scam from the first day WaPo and the Guardian waved that perfectly legal Verizon warrant in our faces like it was a smoking gun. It isn't, and Snowden et al. are tools or worse, end of story.

JMHO, YMVV. Rec for a relatively objective title.

[randome]

48. That perfectly legal warrant and the misunderstanding of PRISM.

Last edited Sat Oct 25, 2014, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)

That should have been enough to make most doubt these guys knew what they were talking about.

And don't forget about the 'grand finale' fireworks display in August that...didn't happen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[ucrdem]

49. Right, the smoking PowerPoints.

That was really a dumb summer news-wise. Kind of funny though.

[Dont call me Shirley]

57. I smell scam too.

A program secretly started under bush, exposed under Obama.

Fast & Furious
NSA spying
Drone program

Add as you like.....

[ucrdem]

139. Long list. Basically all the old the stink bombs and a few fresh booby traps

made new and Democratic through the miracle of "social media" a.k.a. CATO and friends including Snowy and Stinko, Rand and Ron, Noam, Jules and Jeremy, and all the other windbags on the fake left. . .

[Dont call me Shirley]

145. Assaultive competitiveness is the wrong way to run a country.

[ucrdem]

153. ODS is a force that gives us meaning

to borrow a phrase from a borrower, so to speak

[treestar]

67. +1

The story is an exercise is attention seeking on the part of Eddie and the journalists. They are not the least interested in any "debate" about national security.

[ucrdem]

141. Yep. . .

and the local libertarian league is having conniptions so let's keep this one kicked . . .

[20score]

54. How the fuck do people like you sleep at night?

The authoritarian, 'war on reality' mind has always eluded and disgusted me. There are mountains of evidence proving the NSA is over-stepping its authority, the Constitution and making this a less free country. But just like the climate deniers and creationists before you, you attack the messenger because you have no real case. It's all been laid out thousands of times before. You and your ilk were wrong then, and you're wrong now. I'm not going to restate the obvious again.

Does this make those who attack Snowden and Greenwald while ignoring the real story bad people? Fuck yes it does, and it makes me ill.

Yes, I know this breaks some rule because it hurts someone's feelings and this response will be alerted on. Don't care. You and your ilk will always be technically and moral bankrupt, so alert away.

(This is written not to the poster, but to the author of the article and all those who support it.)

[marym625]

56. couldn't have said it better myself

It's a weird world when this shit happens. But the same was said of Daniel Ellsberg. So I am not surprised

[20score]

59. There are a few on this thread - and they're on threads like this -

that truly are close to the bottom of humanity. Too many bad qualities to count.

[marym625]

60. yep! n/t

[treestar]

65. Good grief

Anything to defend Eddie from the slightest critique, stuck on attacking people, not discussing what he did!

[20score]

68. You have it completely backwards. Read what I said in post #54.

The attacks on Snowden and Greenwald should and does make any thinking person sick. Those are the distractions. Obvious, disgusting, reality free distractions.

[randome]

74. I'm a thinking person. Who are you to say I'm not?

I often say I don't care whether I'm right or wrong. I just want to see things for how they really are. Of course I'm not the most unbiased judge of fidelity to that idea. But why are you?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[20score]

81. Because i don't deny empirical evidence - and yes, your side does.

I also don't confuse ad hominems with evidence and proof and don't protect the powerful criminals by scapegoating whistle-blowers.

Here's my proof. Go ahead and prove these documents wrong. Use the scientific method. If you don't, then you will be rightfully ignored. Good luck.

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-documents-search

[randome]

84. That database contains a shitload of programs that the NSA has used and probably still uses.

So? The header starts off with the ACLU saying that the NSA is monitoring 'hundreds of millions' of Americans, which sounds like hyperbole without substance to back it up. Especially since there are 'only' 3 hundred million Americans today.

The idea that the NSA collects data on Americans while they are overseas is a valid topic for discussion.

But in today's digital world, as I've pointed out before, it is not difficult, it is impossible to monitor a foreign suspect's communications without inadvertently 'grabbing' data that may belong to an American citizen.

Just like it's impossible to only hear one side of a tapped phone conversation.

So what is there in those documents that can be proved right or wrong? That the NSA is a massive bureaucracy? That the ACLU is right when it says all Americans are being spied on all the time? Because that's what 'hundreds of millions' of Americans would lead one to believe. Where is the evidence supporting this?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[20score]

86. This is the last time I address you until you use the scientific method. At least once!

Accusations and baseless contradictions are not proof. Take one document and disprove it. Otherwise, shut up about it and admit you have nothing.

[randome]

88. Good luck on your new thread on this topic, then.

{Sigh.}
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[treestar]

124. Why do you get to decide the terms of the debate?

And you are being insulting here in this post, while complaining about that in other posts.

Using the label "scientific" is not enough to make you right.

It has been shown what Eddie leaked was already known, was legal activity under the current laws, and he fled to another country rather than stand on his alleged convictions.

[treestar]

123. You indeed do

You resorted to ad hominem to call those who don't agree with Ed's decisions cowardly, etc.

Eddie is not a whistleblower, he's an attention seeker. There is plenty of proof of that.

[treestar]

122. Oh baloney.

Disagree, but making you sick?

I don't agree with Eddie, but his admirers don't make me "sick." I can handle debate.

[CakeGrrl]

211. "Truly close to the bottom of humanity"

Really?

Over an opinion of Snowden that isn't starry-eyed admiration?

REALLY???

OK.

[MisterP]

58. note TNR's support for the Contras, Israel, and the Iraq adventures

their editorial line is just to provide plausibility and sufficient delay/breathing space for neoconservatism by making it look like all sides of the spectrum support it

[treestar]

64. overreaction

It actually must be harder to sleep when you react that much to disagreement.

[20score]

70. It's not a disagreement. That trivalizes what your side is doing.

Attacking a whistle blower's integrity to further and distract from crimes committed by the powerful. For millennia, those who participate in those character assassinations have almost universally been on the wrong side of history, and have shown cowardice, reprehensible characteristics, short-sightedness, slow thinking and have been an anchor on human progress.

But go ahead, pretend to be superior. It's all you've got.

[joshcryer]

71. What NSA reforms have been accomplished?

None, because of the spectacle, because of the absurd way in which the data was presented. Every single time that information got published it got drowned out by the next weeks drama, shooting, health scare, scandal. Every time they trickled some new information.

If anything the leaks have led to the exact opposite, we have people in this very thread claiming ISIS recruitment "proves a need for the NSA." We have had zero legislative reforms. And Mark Udall, who helped actually break the NSA's activities, is looking to lose reelection. So, you know, spare us the moral outrage when literally nothing is being reformed and we're still stuck here.

But peoples pockets sure are getting lined.

[marym625]

73. Because every time

The distraction was brought out.

You made his point

[joshcryer]

75. What are you talking about?

Give me an example.

I have only called for more releases, not less. But Greenwald and Snowden insisted on only releasing information in timed intervals. And every time it got less and less relevant, because people were like, "oh, yeah, we knew about that," or "oh, yeah, that's public knowledge on page C5 at the back of the NY Times."

[treestar]

121. I don't even think he qualifies as a whistleblower!

Some people do have bad character!

If Eddie had character, he'd have stayed in the US and faced the music. He fled to a far more repressive country (if you insist on calling ours repressive). It's ridiculous to make a hero out of him.

No I am not cowardly and reprehensible for thinking that! Good grief! This is debate? We are to be called these things for not agreeing in lockstep with the actions of Eddie Snowden? We reached absurdity here.

[ucrdem]

148. I think they're including dog whistles

so, yeah.

[bahrbearian]

72. Right On

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. +1000 The pro-survellance state gang are not liberals at all. They may be partisan loyalist.

But they sure the hell are not liberals regardless who they vote for. They just want to see their click of cool people run things and tell everyone else what to do. If they had one liberal bone in their body they would recognized that their defense of something they would be condemning if the uncool gang was in power is beyond dishonest and morally depraved.

[truebrit71]

92. Yup.

Fucking authoritarian apologists make me sick, and they have no place on an allegedly "liberal/progressive" board...

[Aerows]

103. Well said! n/t

[Andy823]

157. So tell me one thing

Where are all those "ground breaking" reports that Greenwald has promised for months? He keeps hyping up the "suspense" but delivers nothing.

It really amazes me that you and your ilk, stole that from you by the way, accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you that these two men are so great, are "authoritarians" who have a problem with reality, while you and your ilk, are the true liberals and it seems the only ones dealing in reality. You, and your ilk, toss around that "authoritarian" label more than Ron Paul and his band of libertarian nuts. The fact is Snowden and Greenwald are two libertarian nut cases who love to attack the democrats on this stuff, but fail to point out any of the republican involvement, or the fact it started on W's watch. Seems to me that the only "reality" not being dealt with around here is on you and your ilk's side.

[20score]

159. You're proving my point.

You have nothing but ad hominems and have not only lost the ability to think because of of your ideology, but are an actual danger to the future of the country. Not hyperbole. Prove the documents wrong, or keep your TMZ, bullshit to yourself.

[Andy823]

160. Really?

I asked you where all the ground breaking things Greenwald promised to "expose" are. Has he told us the names of those who were spied on by the NSA like he said he would? Did I miss it, and if I did couldn't you post a link to those names?

I never said the documents were wrong, although most of the country already knew about what was going on, all I did was point out a few facts, which you seem to ignore. Why don't you prove to me that everything that was promised by the two has been published.

Instead of calling people names why not address the questions?

[20score]

163. Goddamnit! No, I won't answer your question. Greenwald is not the story.

That's the whole point of the post.

[Andy823]

166. Greenwald speaks for Snowden

Snowden give him the "information" and Greenwald release it. Both of them are liars. The OP is about Snowden lying, my questions were about the honest of Greenwald, Snowdens mouth piece. My point is they keep promising things that they never deliver, lying about things they don't have. They are partners in the con job. Where does Greenwald get is information, the names for example if not from Snoden?

[20score]

168. I have posted this about six times in the last 24 hours. Once more.

Here's a few thousand documents. Prove one wrong or STFU!

https://www.aclu.org/nsa-documents-search

[ucrdem]

170. Documents are not crimes, but stealing them is. nt

[20score]

173. That's your come back?! For fucks sake!

That is the most pathetic response yet. And you had some heavy competition.

[ucrdem]

174. Yes, and I notice you're not denying it. nt

[20score]

176. Denying what? WTF are you talking about?

Never mind. I'll end up having something hidden by talking to you.

I don't put people on 'ignore,' but I can still ignore people.

Done with you.

[ucrdem]

178. Glad I could straighten things out for you. nt

[99Forever]

83. Isn't that special?

A new steaming pile. Just like all the rest. Same stench, different day.

Authoritarians really suck at convincing anyone with an IQ above room temp.

[Andy823]

162. Here we go again.

Why is that so many here, like you, have to resort to calling anyone who does not agree with them "authoritarians"? Name calling seems to me like a better example of that "steam pile" you refer to.

[99Forever]

164. Walks like a duck,

quacks like a duck, has feathers covering it's butt. It's a duck.

[Andy823]

167. Great reply.

How clever.

[99Forever]

169. Nothing "great" or "clever" about it.

It's simply the truth.

[ucrdem]

172. And the truth is, Snowden and Greenwald exposed no criminal behavior except their own.

They didn't win any Pulitzers, either. Except of course on the internet.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

90. Neat excerpt. Where are the lies that are referenced in the title?

[Cha]

97. "Despite Poitras’ best efforts, the movie confirms the views of his critics."

Fucking hypocritical FearMongers

"Snowden’s leaks aren’t primarily aimed at returning transparency or triggering a public debate; they are about creating his preferred policy outcomes, outcomes that usually involve a weaker state. This becomes even more apparent as Greenwald explains how he intends not only to release information about government programs, but present it in as “brutal” and alarmist a light as possible. The leaks were aimed not just to inform, but to frighten."


This review is reality based.. the Snowalds will hate it!

"..The implication is that Snowden has been targeted and persecuted by the government because he is a dissenter. This is false. Snowden is a dissenter, but he is also a law-breaker. And the latter is the reason he has been targeted. There are a host of journalists, pundits, and commentators who share Snowden’s views, and they are all dissenters. But as far as I know, journalist Conor Friedersdorf and anchor Piers Morgan do not fear arrest."

They're always trying to make Ed out to be a big whiny victim hiding over there in Russia behind Putin's shield.. whining about the USA and other countries but not a damn thing about the Dic Putin.. guess Ed's not stupid.

"But what comes after is a tale of narcissism and cowardice. Egged on by Greenwald and Guardian journalist Ewen MacAskill, who constantly ask him when he will “go public,” and a WikiLeaks community eager to hold him up as a banner of resistance, Snowden develops a world-historical view of himself and a twisted understanding of what constitutes bravery. Suddenly, and without explanation, keeping Snowden out of the reach of the American government becomes an issue of paramount importance. “Fuck the skulking!” declares Snowden, while Greenwald urges him to “feel the power” of their bold stand against oppression. Shortly thereafter, Snowden practices hiding under a green umbrella and sneaks onto a flight for Russia."

"The movie also unmasks Snowden as a liar desperate to return to Americans’ good graces." Good.. because that's what he is.

"Snowden is clearly trying to rehabilitate his image as a patriot. But Snowden is not a patriot, and he might be better off simply trying to get his story straight."

Mahalo Janey.

[Luminous Animal]

109. Except near every other review, even some Snowden critics, says the opposite.

[hughee99]

98. Why would Snowden be on trial at all? Nothing he said was true...

I think that was the latest one... or maybe it is true, but it's old news... or maybe it's not old news, but it's not illegal.

[Aerows]

101. You can hate on Edward Snowden

as much as you want - it won't change the fact that he did the world a public service by revealing the extent of surveillance our own government exercises against the very people that pay for it.

I'd rather one hundred Edward Snowden's than one General Clapper.

Maybe the idiots in the NSA should have anticipated how badly received their spying would be. Arrogance is what is coming back to haunt them, and it couldn't happen to better group of dumbasses.

[840high]

106. ...^ that

[Luminous Animal]

114. I concur.

[LeftyMom]

113. You can judge somebody by who their enemies are.

If I knew nothing else about the situation this thread would convince me that he was an okay dude.

[Aerows]

116. LMAO!

Exactly, LeftyMom, and we don't agree often, but in this? Absolutely.

[treestar]

125. Immature. nt

[Cha]

129. "In other words, the trial is “unfair” because the evidence conclusively establishes that Snowden

committed the crime"

[nilesobek]

135. They just want to get their

torturing, murdering hands on Snowden. He will not get a fair trial, this is a joke. He will be rendered, tied up, put in an interrogation room and tortured, tortured like they have done to any renegade agent on the *blink.* That's really the big problem for Snowden now, the culture of intelligence agencies being such that he is branded a "traitor," he is boxed in somewhere in Russia. He will never return to the West, all he faces is torture and death here.

[Scuba]

136. Whatever Snowden's shortcomings may be, they don't excuse the NSA's crimes.

[840high]

137. Yep.

[woo me with science]

142. +10000 Of course they don't. Which is why all these PR threads are pathetic.

The smear machine, the NSA/Third Way apologism machine, has no credibility whatsoever and dirties itself further with every attempt to hurl slime.

These are odious commercials on DU for a group of politicians and a political agenda that is authoritarian and viciously ANTIdemocratic. Apologists and shills for it need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and think about what they really want to stand for and what they want their own lives and behavior to represent in this short life. This garbage is incompatible with conscience and human decency.

[ucrdem]

143. Which NSA crimes did Snowball expose again?

Don't hold back, T.I.A.

[randome]

155. .

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is hockey Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[ucrdem]

158. ..

[ucrdem]

165. ...

[ucrdem]

177. ....

[Luminous Animal]

180. The ones that they are currently being sued for by the EFF and the ACLU.

[ucrdem]

182. The EFF and ACLU are suing crimes exposed by Snowden?

And what crimes exposed by Snowden would those be?

[Luminous Animal]

183. Look it up. It's really easy.

[ucrdem]

184. Right. There are no such, at least before edits. But thanks for popping in.

[Luminous Animal]

187. I did an OP about one such lawsuit today. It's on the greatest page.

[ucrdem]

188. You also edited your post after I had answered it. nt

[Luminous Animal]

189. Ah, I see. Glad to see you focus on the meat of things.

[ucrdem]

190. I don't rely on deception to make my points, no. nt

[Luminous Animal]

194. I added the word "for". Ooooh! Deception.

[ucrdem]

199. The Jewel case was filed in 2008, back when Snowden loved his prez. nt

[Luminous Animal]

200. So? EFF now has a stronger case. Their motion for partial summary judgment uses, among other things

Snowden docs.

[ucrdem]

203. Swell. Meanwhile, no NSA crimes exposed by team Snowball. Thanks. nt

[Luminous Animal]

206. Nope. Opposite of EFF's and the ACLU's position.

[ucrdem]

208. I'll put that next to the Pulitzers they won. nt

[Luminous Animal]

209. The ACLU and EFF won Pulitzers'? I hate it when I miss the big news.

ucrdem said "I'll put that next to the Pulitzers they won. nt"

[ucrdem]

214. Not to worry. Everyone wins a Pulitzer on the internet.

If you catch my drift.

[ucrdem]

144. Snowden with NSA Director General Michael Hayden at a gala in 2011

in tuxes. They look just like each other, don't they?



original source: http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/

[ucrdem]

147. Snowball whopper #1, June 17, 2013:

Watch Snowy claim the U.S. government has accused him of "treason" in a Guardian Q & A on June 17, 2013, link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

During a live questions-and-answers session on Monday, Edward Snowden falsely claimed "the government" openly declared him guilty of treason. Snowden, who fled Hawaii for Hong Kong after leaking documents about National Security Administration surveillance programs, said the accusation "destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home."

1) First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.

"The government" has made no such claim: Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday he is "confident that the person who is responsible will be held accountable." While that's probably unpleasant to Snowden, holding people accountable to the law is exactly the purpose of court proceedings and due process.

http://mashable.com/2013/06/17/snowden-treason/

It's not nice to tell fibs, Eddy.

[Luminous Animal]

179. Monday June 11, 2013. "NSA leak is treason, says Feinstein"

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/304635-nsa-leak-is-treason-says-sen-feinstein

[ucrdem]

191. Senator Feinstein is not the Attorney General. nt

[Luminous Animal]

192. Snowden did not specify the AG. Feinstein holds a very powerful position in government.

The Executive branch is not the entirety of government.

[ucrdem]

195. Prosecutions are Holder's bailiwick and he spoke four days later. nt

[Luminous Animal]

196. And? There is no lie. He never claimed that the US govt. said he should be prosecuted

for treason. When powerful people in the US govt. spout off in the MSM (which is then amplified over and over) that a person is guilty of a specific crime prior to a trial, it will tend to taint the jury pool.

[ucrdem]

198. Feinstein is not the USG, and the USG did not openly declare Snowden guilty of treason.

Blatantly false claim, or call it a lie if you like. Same thing either way.

[Luminous Animal]

201. Feinstein is indeed the U.S. government. All three branches are the U.S. government.

I will not be railroaded into acceding that we do not have have 3 EQUAL branches of government and that an extremely powerful U.S. Senator is not a member of the U.S. government.

I will not accede that the term "U.S. government" is confined to the executive branch.

I will not accende the term U.S. government to an imperial presidency.

[ucrdem]

202. She holds an office. So does Holder, and his has jurisdiction in this matter. nt

[Luminous Animal]

204. And? Holder's jurisdiction is not the point of contention.

[ucrdem]

205. Snowy's claim is the point and he lied. I'm sorry. nt

[Luminous Animal]

207. Mr. Snowden's claim is in plain language. The U.S. government, as represented by powerful Senators,

accused him of treason.

[pinto]

152. Fareed Zakaria noted the difference on his CNN show this morning.

A fair trial focuses on one aspect - did the man commit a crime. It's limited to that scope in the best of circumstances.

Defense would very likely bring up the issues of intent and benefits of his actions as a supporting argument. Those are aspects to be put into consideration.

Prosecution would very likely bring up specific legal statutes related to his actions. Those are aspects to be put into consideration.

Then, it would be up to a jury.

[Luminous Animal]

185. Defense, under the espionage act, would be barred from bringing up intent.

Defense would also be barred from bringing up the fact that one judge has found the NSA in violation of the Constitution and they would be barred from following that line of questioning with Constitutional scholars.

Fareed Zakaria is simply flat out wrong. And he knows he's wrong.

[pinto]

212. Thanks for the clarification. I stated it wrong. I think Fareed was posing some theoretical points.

Not specific legal points. A good distinction. His piece was framed as an attempt to balance the disparate points of view about Snowden returning to the US and standing for trial, if charged.

Neither he nor I are lawyers, so it's really all conjecture.

[Cha]

210. Mahalo for that, pinto.

[CJCRANE]

154. A lot of nice adjectives and descriptive verbs. Reads more like a creative writing exercise.

I'm not exactly sure what Snowden and Greenwald are up to, but I didn't find this review very convincing.

[KurtNYC]

161. Fits with these other articles by this 22YO:

"The U.S. Still Needs to Be “Team America World Police”

"Obama's ISIS Strategy Is Way More Coherent Than His Critics Claim"

"The Nude Celebrity Photo Theft Should Scare You More Than the NSA Does"

"Wired Conveniently Forgot to Ask Edward Snowden a Single Tough Question"

"Israel's Deadly Invasion of Gaza Is Morally Justified"

[SomethingFishy]

193. Who cares.

I care about what was in the documents not who what where and how they were released.

But this has been hashed, rehashed, and fried over and over and over again. Yet here we are close to an important election and still Democrats are eating their own and trying to divide themselves up.

Well done.

[Luminous Animal]

197. Nobody is trying to divide themselves up. We are clearly divided with little or no effort at all.

[stevenleser]

213. K&R. Snowden's story is riddled with lies and inconsistencies. nt