Josh Marshall on Edward Snowden

[ProSense]

Wow. Just Wow

Josh Marshall

<...>

The Guardian, in its promotion of this story is one of the “most significant leaks in US political history.” I’m not sure that’s necessarily true, though it’s difficult to come up with other contenders. But by revealing so much and then revealing himself, I do think he’s taken the story into a genuinely unprecedented place. He wasn’t caught, as Manning was. He’s freely revealed himself, albeit from foreign soil. And he’s made it possible for himself to speak directly to the American public before he gets taken into custody, if that happens. That puts a human dimension to this story that may lead in unexpected directions.

Though this part is a little cryptic in the discussion, Snowden seems to hope that he will be able to get asylum in a friendly country. He’s currently holed up in Hong Kong. And there’s a vague suggestion in the video that he might seek asylum either there or in mainland China. In the accompanying article he says his first choice would be asylum in Iceland, though frankly, it’s hard for me to imagine that a country both diplomatically and geographically close to the US would ever offer it. Whatever the ins and outs of where, though he seems resigned to the various potential consequences of his acts, he at least hopes to remain at liberty in another country. And his move to Hong Kong seems the first concrete act along those lines. I would assume this will fairly quickly lead to a decision on the part of the Chinese government about whether to take custody of him and turn him over to US authorities. Conceivably it might even test the still significant de facto independence of the Hong Kong SAR.

In the substance of his comments, Snowden suggests that the kinds of surveillance we’ve been hearing about is widely abused, though he doesn’t state specifically just how that is. I think it’s probably fair to say that most people who support this kind of surveillance in a general sense assume, hope - choose your verb - that there are technical and legal protections in place to curb or prevent abuses, even though they can never be full proof. I’d be very curious to hear more specifically what kinds of things he’s referring to.

Finally, just who is Snowden, in the context of the US Intelligence Community? Did he have access and visibility into quite as much as he suggests? He suggests that as a computer technician he essentially had a view into basically everything. That’s not inherently implausible given the role of specialized technical knowledge. But that makes me skeptical. I have little doubt that people in the IC will try to present him as a more marginal figure than he described, regardless of whether it’s true. But that’s another point that has me curious. It seems pretty clear, based on what he’s already leaked, that he had some fairly high clearance, if only to have access to the stuff he leaked. But again, these are points I’m very curious to hear more about.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/06/wow_just_wow.php

Frankly, there is likely a lot more to this story, and it wouldn't suprise me if there is an agenda here.

[randome]

1. There is an agenda. When two like personalities meet -Greenwald & Snowden-...

...the result is a melding into an agenda that blurs objectivity. They are both promoting themselves instead of promoting the story and letting the facts speak for themselves.

Greenwald is telling us how important his stories to come will be.

Snowden is telling us how brave he is.

Both men make me suspicious about their agendas.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[brentspeak]

4. What's the agenda between Obama and the Repubs who have his back on this?

What's the agenda between Obama and the WSJ Editorial Staff which has his back?

[ProSense]

9. Check this out:

"What's the agenda between Obama and the Repubs who have his back on this? What's the agenda between Obama and the WSJ Editorial Staff which has his back? "

While Udall reserved the brunt of his criticism for the decision by the intelligence community to keep the surveillance program a secret rather than criticize the program itself — later on Sunday he actually defended the PRISM program that monitors communications overseas, and doesn’t log all metadata — he did question the effectiveness of collecting billions of phone records made by Americans.

Lawmakers Tear Into Obama’s Surveillance Program, Pledge To Challenge It At Supreme Court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022977943

[randome]

15. I don't know. All I do know -and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise- is what I stated above.

Both Greenwald and Snowden seem to have an agenda.

Snowden says he witnessed the process being abused but he so far won't say what kind of abuse that is. It's all nebulous 'evil' stuff.

That's not enough to get me hot and bothered.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[sabrina 1]

21. Greenwald's agenda has always been the same so it is well known and has earned him

the respect, as well as awards, of anyone who cares about this country and is not a partisan hack on either side. His credibility is enhanced by the fact that extreme partisans on the far right and the left both hate him. That is as a result of his complete dedication to the truth regardless of political parties. That is what true journalism is about.

It's curious you would state that you know what Snowden's agenda is. We know nothing about him. In fact we know his name for less than 24 hours. Where are you getting enough information on this man to be able to be so sure of his agenda? I have no clue what his agenda is, but if what he leaked is true, I'm glad he did it. HE isn't the issue, the information is what matters.

He also said he has more to release, and what he released so far is not 'nebulous' according to the President. But what does he know?

[JDPriestly]

31. Lots of people have an agenda.

Maybe Snowden's agenda is to let the American people in on a secret so that we can decide what is right and not be pushed around by the NSA.

We are supposed to have open trials, habeas corpus, a right to privacy, and checks and balances in our government in addition to other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Open trials need to occur in every case including in military courts.

Habeas corpus needs to be respected. We are not in an insurrection. Every detained person should have the right to habeas corpus. The Fourth Amendment and the right to remain silent should be amended.

And, all cases and controversies implicating the Constitution or our Bill of Rights should be heard in Article III courts.

There is nothing new about my assertions. It's all in the Constitution and there is much more.

Yet none of my issues are being addressed and my "shoulds" are not being carried out. It's all in the Constitution.

Please, please read the Constitution carefully and if you don't understand something, do a Google search. Your life and the lives of your loved ones may depend on whether we can return to constitutional government or not.

For your convenience, here is a link to a searchable, easy-to-read copy of the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

[xtraxritical]

45. Why should the fourth and fifth amendments be "amended"? wtf?

[JDPriestly]

48. Amended to state more clearly that the government may not

interfere with our right to privacy in our legal communications, relationships and activities.

[xtraxritical]

51. Naw, put more LIBs on SCOTUS.

[RobinA]

28. The "Agenda" Charge

was made against Ellsberg, too. Who cares what their agenda is or if they even had one? The only important thing here is the information. If you don't believe the information, refute it. If you do believe it, decide where you stand on it. Either way, the "agenda" in its release is not relevant to the actual information. It's no less true if they have an evil agenda, and it's no more true if they had good intentions.

[JDPriestly]

30. I wonder sometimes whether we have people on DU who work

for the NSA or some similar organization.

Snowden struck me as a calm, very humble man.

His talent is understanding systems. He did not need to be at the top of the technological heap in order to see the system from his cubicle.

He had talent. If a person has talent as a musician, they can hear a whole piece of music in their head, each note just as clearly as if it were being played by instruments at the moment. Beethoven was nearly deaf when he wrote the 9th Symphony. Yet he heard every note. Every note is perfect as written. That is because a good musician can even write down the notes he hears as he hears them in his mind's ear. He is only impeded or slowed by the speed of his hands.

So, I figure that Snowden, seeing one portion of the system that he was working with, over time, could easily picture the whole. That was his gift. That is why he was hired to work with the best.

Of course, I have never met him. But I have met people who had talent in various fields -- music, art, understanding people. They all had this ability to conceptualize from a small piece what the whole should look or sound or feel like.

As for being an egotist, that is true for many, many people including many on DU. It's part of being human. In some parts of the world, people who are able to overcome egotistical drives are admired. In America, people who fulfill their egotistical drives are worshiped. So it is common to see egotists on TV. Fox News is full of them.

But Snowden did not at all seem egotistical to me. He did not strut or brag. He was very calm. He seemed resigned. I would suspect him more of having very little ego, maybe even very little personality. I picture him as a bit of a bore at parties, the kind of guy who stands around and watches and hopes someone will notice him enough so that he doesn't look like he is a bump on a log, but not too much so that he won't be expected to act brilliant or be witty.

It is very easy to dismiss whistleblowers as egotists. Maybe some of them are. But I think that most nowadays are really troubled by the terrible conflict that they experience when they realize that the American people are being tricked, duped, fooled, used and double-crossed by their leaders and the corporate giants that are trampling our human rights.

[xtraxritical]

46. Danial Elsberg says this is more important than what he, himself, did. I agree.

[nineteen50]

35. Bull

they are trying to be front and center and highly visible to protect themselves.

[B Stieg]

41. Agreed.

This just feels more and more like James O'Keefe on the internet.

The privacy concerns are valid but far from new, and Greenwald is a pretty unrepentant ur-fascist "living in self-imposed exile."

It's all pretty dramatic and mostly self-serving.

[Maedhros]

42. Greenwald is an ur-fascist?

An ur-fascist that rails continuously against the power of the state? How does that work?

[B Stieg]

49. I don't think that he does...

Instead, he knows it all.

here's the link to the term

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

[Maedhros]

50. Clearly you do not read Greenwald's column

He has consistently argued against the Surveillance State and unchecked executive power.

Eco's article does not seem to apply to Greenwald. Can you post some examples of Greenwald's writing and explain how it follows from a fascist political ethic?

[B Stieg]

52. I don't think you read Eco correctly.

His argument is an aesthetic and, I believe, an affective one. Your response seems politically based and therefore misses this point.

I have read a number of Greenwald's laborious writings, and, although I am not a phenomenologist or a psychological critic, I think his work reveals several of Eco's hallmarks quite clearly as does the history around his career and self-imposed exile. Odd how Mr. Snowden seems to exhibit some of the same characteristics.

I understand Greenwald projects the "right" positions for those of us who may lean left, but I'd caution you to read more deeply, and in places other than Tolkien (no offense intended if you are a medievalist).

[Maedhros]

53. I still don't follow you.

How does his work reveal "several of Eco's hallmarks"? Can you provide some examples? Because I just don't see it.

BTW, his "self imposed" exile results from neanderthal U.S. policy regarding the immigration and citizenship status of same-sex spouses. Greenwald lives in "exile" because his spouse is Brazilian and cannot get a green card. They would rather live together than separated by an ocean. If that is a "fascist hallmark" then, well, I don't have much more to say.

[B Stieg]

54. Again, I don't think you don't understand ur-fascism or Glen Greenwald.

Perhaps it's because all you see is binaries, so you're hemmed in by politics and economics. Eco's writing goes well beyond this. It's a style which you seem to assume does not exist on the left.

And no, I'm not going to write you an essay about how Glen is an ur-fascist. As Eco says, "These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it." But to be more specific, he's elitist, his "fear comes from individual and social frustration," and if you don't think he's into the whole hero thing, well then I'd suggest that you read too many of his columns and should instead listen to the man (lots available on-line).

I understand what he's saying from the political and economic position and I support it. I have been researching Ordoliberalism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism for the past five years and I can assure you that I am very careful when I use such terms.

[Maedhros]

55. Russell's Teapot

The burden of proof lies upon the person making the extraordinary claim.

Of course, you're "not going to write you an essay about how Glen is an ur-fascist." You're just going to accuse him of it without backing up your statement with facts.

[B Stieg]

56. Enjoy your heroes!

[Junkdrawer]

2. Try this one on for size...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022973483

[boston bean]

3. Yeah an agenda to bring to the light of day, unconstitutional practices

that could bring what we know as freedom to it's knees some day.

WTF! This isn't rocket science, of course there is an agenda.

[ProSense]

6. No,

"Yeah an agenda to bring to the light of day, unconstitutional practices that could bring what we know as freedom to it's knees some day. WTF! This isn't rocket science, of course there is an agenda."

...it's not "rocket science," and while there is secrecy around the program, it's existence has long been known (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2978388)

You can claim the program is "unconstitutional," but that's your opinion based on what you want to believe. The fact is that the program was conducted legally.

The government has been collecting information for decades. The question has always been whether or not those activities violate the Constitution, even when they are in compliance with existing laws.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) - No warrant required for call metadata
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022966764

Meet the Carnivore system
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022972777

This is as good a time as any to have the debate. It's probably one of the best times.

Lawmakers Tear Into Obama’s Surveillance Program, Pledge To Challenge It At Supreme Court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022977943

[boston bean]

8. Many laws and legislation have been found to be unconstitutional throughout our history, no?

Let's play in the same ball park here, ok?

Just because something is a law or there was legislation does not make it constitutional.

[ProSense]

14. Until then,

"Many laws and legislation have been found to be unconstitutional throughout our history, no?"

...it's the law, and declaring something "unconstitutional" based on misinformation doesn't cut it.

I mean, some people believe the Department of Education is unconstitutional. The facts matter.

The administration stated that the program doesn't apply to Americans, and people dismiss that to bolster the claim that it's unconstitutional.

[boston bean]

17. How do we get to the "until then"?

How did we get to the "until then" on any other multitude of laws that were found to be unconstitutional.

Not speak about it. Not voice an opinion. Not pressure our elected officials? Not change views? Not bring court cases?

[ProSense]

18. Who

"How do we get to the "until then"?

How did we get to the "until then" on any other multitude of laws that were found to be unconstitutional.

Not speak about it. Not voice an opinion. Not pressure our elected officials? Not change views? Not bring court cases? "

...said anything about not having a debate? Still, it needs to be a fact-based debate.

[struggle4progress]

25. Good luck with the current Supreme Court: I can't see them touching any of this

So that leaves getting Congress to change the law as the only viable option -- and that'll take a while

[sabrina 1]

33. We're not just talking about the Government, we are talking about Private Corporations who

are making billions of dollars for their 'work'. What work? Why are our rights in the hands of shady Corporations, mostly run by Republicans??

Is this okay with you? Republican profiteers in control of deciding which of our rights we need to give up so they can profit from then next billion dollar contract??

Just stop, please. There is always a tipping point in these affairs and for years Democrats have been trying to get attention for Bush's abuses, only to find their party chose to 'move forward'. Drake, a Republican himself, and a person of impeccable character regarding his service to his country, was persecuted for revealing information about this 'security network' we have been watching with great concern ever since it began. All charges had to be dropped against him, they KNEW they could not win that case, yet went after him to try to stop others from talking. That man is a hero, and viewed as such now. He confirms today that this leaker was right to do what he did.

Our democracy is in danger, whether you want to believe it or not. Ron Wyden has more credibility in his little finger than all the 'private security contractors' put together, and when he attempts to warn us about what they are doing, I believe him. This latest leak only confirms Wyden's concerns, and it all traces back the Multi Billion Dollar security BUSINESS.

[nineteen50]

36. Old or current it is

WRONG!

[frazzled]

5. If there were widespread abuses, as Snowden claims (without any specifics)

it seems to me we'd know about it. We'd hear burgeoning reports of people being "disappeared." We haven't. We'd see equally widespread prosecutions; we haven't (to my knowledge). Seven years hasn't turned up much except the newly revealed FISA warrant (an improvement over the Bush years, when the administration thought FISA warrants were unnecessary).

This is an aspect of the story that has been little discussed or analyzed. There are two areas to ponder:

(1) What harm has come to US citizens as a result of data mining? We can only look to evidence of actual acts on the part of the government, such as secret detentions and/or prosecutions based on information gleaned from the programs. So far, no evidence has come to light, though I wouldn't be surprised if handful of misdirected questionings have occurred.

(2) What potential harm could there be in the future? This, of course, is what everyone fears and is thinking about. Some kind of Stasi operation; people being sent to the Gulags for their thoughts. I find this highly improbable in our system of government. A dictator on the order of a Stalin would be difficult to achieve here, given the balance of powers. Of course, if it DID happen, this would be the least of our worries. We'd be so fucked anyway.

[freshwest]

20. Harm? Look at any RWNJ site and find all kinds of harm, from Vince Foster to Breitbart to who knows.

The CTers (yes, I listen to them at times to see which way the wind, er, hot air, blows) claim all sorts of people have been killed and disappeared.

That everyone is being spied upon and that eventually one of the false flag operations will finally give government the excuse to make use of the data and start the disappearances.

Is it all bullshit, since most of it comes from the Birchers, Patriots, etc. that infest the body politic?

We may say it is, but from the level of public discourse and the increasing size of the CT franchise (and it is a money making operation, from the ones who go and confront politicans and sell stuff) that is being openly used by GOP politicans in office, no less, what are to do?

We've already got people on DU who playing the Romney 'won't bow down to the fact checkers' routine. They just know what they know, and they don't want to be bothered with these details or figuring this out. They've joined the cult of whatever, and they are not going to vote or believe anything that the media didn't tell them. The same media that lied the country into Iraq, the voices that tell them it's all a lie, except what they hear.

And the fact they haven't seen this wild oppression doesn't help as it's just part of the big huge police state game. I'm not sure what to do. We have a few Democrats here, but it sounds more like the states with the teabaggers in control than anyone else.

Just hoping that DU is not a bellwether, just as it wasn't just before the elections. A lot of people who get their opinions from the media, claimed that Obama could not win. Said that repeatedly, then a few voices from different walks of life came up and said it was possible. And it happened. Now we have people saying Obama is a Republican, that the parties are the same, which is a conservative story for us while they tell their followers the opposite, and that Obama's election in 2008 was illegitimate because it was not Democrats, but Republicans who voted for him to spite the Clintons.

In other words, there is no act or word we can do that can dissaude them. Sorry if this going too far off your point but I'm tired and have to turn in.

Thanks for your interesting points there.

[nineteen50]

38. This is a program to

find and define intention so the power elite can act and punish in its best interest without a finding of guilt.

[frazzled]

39. I see you found the tin-foil sale at Walmart!

That was a great bargain, wasn't it?

[nineteen50]

40. The new world

pre-emptive strike. Tinfoil enough?

[AnalystInParadise]

7. I would be curious to know

Josh Marshall's initial thoughts about Bradley Manning. I have suspicions.....

[Fumesucker]

10. ProSense senses an agenda

It's like a Dr Seuss book.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Lol!

[ProSense]

12. Wow,

"It's like a Dr Seuss book. "

...who knew you could read at that level?

[Fumesucker]

13. Mee onley lok att piktchurs no rid werdz

[Bobbie Jo]

37. Lol!

[Maven]

19. ROFL

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. ...

[JaneyVee]

16. Hong Kong has ONE OF THE WORST laws against free speech. Bad choice!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/world/asia/06cnd-hong.html?_r=0

[SunSeeker]

43. But but but...Hong Kong has a strong tradition of free speech.

Snowden said so. Of course, he said that before the Chinese government hinted they would extradite him, followed by his swift exit from his fancy Hong Kong hotel room.

[Cha]

22. Snowden says he's "not hiding" but his first choice would be Iceland while

hiding out in Hong Kong. Sounds like he's looking for the Sweetest deal while "not" hiding from the US.

.Snowden told the Post “I’m not going to hide,” but his future is uncertain.

Hong Kong and the U.S. maintain a bilateral extradition treaty, but it includes exceptions for political crimes. It is unclear how the Chinese government, which maintains significant influence in the Special Administrative Region, will react to Snowden’s presence or how they will treat him. He told the Post that he is seeking “asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy.”

http://swampland.time.com/2013/06/09/four-things-to-know-about-surveillance-leaker-edward-snowden

But, how is that not hiding unless you come back to the US and face the consequences?

thank you for the piece from Josh Marshall, ProSense.

[zeeland]

47. Snowdon's hope to remain in Hong Kong will

Come down to the decision of the Chief Executive. The appeals process
from what I have read could take years. Interestingly, in the last six months
A request for asylum due to political persecution has been added as a
reason for consideration. Hong Kong may turn out to be the safest place
for the moment.

I have also read Russia is also considering an offer of asylum. All very interesting.

[longship]

23. I read this this AM.

It's a good read. Marshall has the same questions as I do about this guy.

R&K

[Hissyspit]

24. Josh Marshall tweeted that after seeing Zero Live Thirty he left feeling "proud."

That soured me on him some.

I responded: @Hissyspit: Pride in what? That we created OBL & than used despicable tactics to clean our mess up? @joshtpm

[joeybee12]

26. Oh the irony...someone has an agenda!

[avaistheone1]

32. Strikes me the same way!

[DevonRex]

29. Of course there's an agenda. Anybody with 2 brain cells sees it.

It's the independent vote. Those uninformed people who tend to swing elections.

[blkmusclmachine]

34. We're all Germans now.

[kelliekat44]

44. I really don't trust him or his motives. nt