Let's be Clear

[sheshe2]

Is Snowden committing an act of civil disobedience?

There are those who are trying to cast Edward Snowden's actions as civil disobedience. I suspect that this argument will be intensified now that he has been charged under the Espionage Act by the DOJ. There is some acceptance among his supporters that he has broken the law. But they want to claim the mantle of it being an "unjust law" that requires civil disobedience.

I'm sure there are legal cases to be made on both sides of this claim. But the fact that Snowden fled to Hong Kong to avoid the consequences of his law breaking - more than anything else - disqualifies him from claiming that mantle.

Take a look at how the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. described his understanding of civil disobedience after careful study in his Letter from Birmingham Jail (the title of which should be a give-away).
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.

There are many things that can be said about Snowden's actions. But its clear that they cannot be put in the company of those who actually practiced civil disobedience.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/

[Tx4obama]

1. I think there is a difference between Snowden and the 'real' civil rights heroes

Breaking a 'law' that you think is unjust is one thing (siting where you want to on a bus, drinking out of a public water fountain, protesting/marching. etc)
but the 'laws' that Snowden broke aren't like those examples.

Snowden committed actual federal crimes related to THEFT:

18 USC 641 Theft of property and records

18 USC 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 USC 798 Disclosure of classified information

Snowden knows he has committed crimes and has admitted it and he also ran off to China (that last part boggles my mind).

In my opinion, he should NEVER be compared to the real heroes of the civil rights movement - they were heroes, Snowden is a punk ass criminal.

[sheshe2]

13. I could not agree with you more Tx!

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.

Could Martin Luther King have said it any better!

Cut and run...that is what cowards do!

[HardTimes99]

46. What's your verdict on Daniel Ellsberg?- nt

Last edited Sun Jun 23, 2013, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

[KittyWampus]

120. Did he run off to China? Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers Trial?

[HardTimes99]

128. I take it from the tone and substance of your questions that you don't

believe Ellsberg was a 'punk-ass criminal' (Tx4obama's description of Snowden)?

[madokie]

99. You got that right

Snowden is a punk ass criminal.
There's right ways and there's wrong ways. his is the wrong way.

[backwoodsbob]

125. Snowden is a punk ass criminal?...wow

would you say the same about Manning?

[sibelian]

147. Hero schmero.

I couldn't care less whether or not he's a hero. What I care about is whether what he's doing works.

[madamesilverspurs]

2. Kick and rec.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. And what happened to Dr. King?

Perhaps Snowden wants to avoid that fate.

[sheshe2]

15. Martin Luther King is a Hero!

He took a stand and he fought the fight! He stood. He stayed. Yes God help us he died. Yet he stayed to fight for what was right!

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://postimage.org/]



Snowden, well he cut and he ran. To China for gosh sake's. He did not stand for his words, he ran!

He never fought the fight!

IMHO we should carefully pick our heros!

[Union Scribe]

42. why is it the only people comparing Snowden to MLK

are people condemning comparing them??

[Major Hogwash]

62. They're not the only ones.

Last week Chris Hayes compared Snowden's acts of treason to the acts of civil disobedience of Rosa Parks and even compared him to MLK.

[Marr]

71. No kidding.

It's getting tiresome.

[thucythucy]

107. Actually, no.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023073009

[treestar]

133. Eddie wouldn't be in danger for his life

That is absurd. He is not challenging anything like the racist laws of the US before the civil rights era. He is not speaking in the United States against anything that riles people up like racism did. He would be a moron if he dared claim his life is in danger.

MLK went to fucking jail and stayed in the US fighting the good fight. He was a person who was spied on, not ordinary idiots who now claim they fear it. He indeed was targeted.

To think that Eddie is anywhere near on the same plane is absolutely outrageous. In fact his trying to avoid that fate if he things he could even rate it marks him as a total coward compared to Dr. King.

[Major Hogwash]

4. Snowden doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of living as a free man.

He envisioned himself as some kind of super dee duper secret agent spy, and then deluded with his fantasy, he stole computers from the NSA and fled the country.

Yeah, that's the stuff of heroes . . . yeah, right.

[rhett o rick]

32. You have no idea what "he envisioned himself". You just want to get a posse and lynch him

because he dared to upset your comfortable denial bubble.

[Major Hogwash]

35. The FBI uses profilers to determine a person's state of mind.

And Snowden has ranted online that he thinks he is a patriot for being a traitor to his own country.
That's about the most tortured logic I have ever seen anyone use for becoming a traitor.

[sheshe2]

40. K&R! nt

Thank you!

[rhett o rick]

100. "Tortured logic"?? One sides traitor is the other sides patriot. Seems pretty

straight forward to me. The NSA and FBI are supposedly working for the 99%. Appears they are tools of the 1%.

Do you deny that the 1% has been bleeding the 99% dry over the last 30 years?

[Monkie]

105. the fact that the FBI uses profilers does not make you a expert on anything

i could make a guess as to what the experts would think of your rants online, but shooting fish in a barrel is a bit too easy.
but will say that wrapping yourself in the mantle of someone elses expertise is a taking the torture of logic to a whole new level.

[sibelian]

148. The FBI is a slobbering pile of twits. "Profiles" are for people who read horoscopes.

If you want to know someone's state of mind you ask them.

[scarletwoman]

63. "...he dared to upset your comfortable denial bubble." Exactly!

Their two-dimensional world of heroes and villians, all limned in bright sunlight with no shadows in the background.

[Major Hogwash]

66. Not hardly.

Try again.

[Sheepshank]

109. Your post just cracked me up....you truly don't see the hypocricy, do you.

You tell the poster they are unqualified to offer a a menatl assessment of Snowden, "You have no idea....."
then turn around and offer your own unqualified assessment, "....upset your denial bubble"

Your rhett o rick is sounding positively ludicrous.

[rhett o rick]

111. And those living in denial bubbles trying to discourage others from discussing

anything that might somehow reflect badly on their idol, cracks me up.

[Sheepshank]

113. Your martyr syndrome is even funnier

no one is asking you to STFU...but less hypocrisy would keep the discussion on target, and less a comedy routine.

[rhett o rick]

130. My "martyr syndrome"?? Now this is about me? Apparently anything to defect from the discussion. nm

[sheshe2]

118. IMHO

I do believe that you own the front page as of late.

Yet we are denying your right to speak!?

That's so silly! You crack me up.

[rhett o rick]

132. What I actually said was that some here are feverishly trying to shut down the discussion

by assassinating the characters of Snowden, Grenwald, Grayson, and others that have asked for transparency.

[sheshe2]

122. "You just want to get a posse and lynch him"

Hmmmm. That sounds familiar.

Let me see...oh got it! I believe that there's a similar one that is doing that to our President.

Snowden=good...Obama =bad!??

[rhett o rick]

129. No, open minded people dont see things in black and white.

I do see how it makes life easier for those that do. For any issue the key is whether or not it makes Pres Obama look favorable or not.

Snowden isnt the only one that has pointed out a potential problem with our intelligence community. In fact we knew things were wrong when Clapper was working for Boosh.

Progressives are fighting for transparency and the truth. Why would any politically liberal minded person want to shut down discussion and promote secrecy?

[treestar]

135. No, I would like to see him go to trial

And admit what he did and stand up for his alleged beliefs and make the sacrifice needed.

He could challenge the constitutionality of the laws he broke.

[rhett o rick]

140. Of course you are a real advocate of laws and justice. But it's ok if Clapper, a Republican lies to

Congress.

Funny thing is that the conservatives love Clapper and the NSA spying, after all it's a Bush program. Progressives want more transparency and an end to blanket spying on Americans. Why would any DU poster choose the side of Republicans and Clapper?

[treestar]

141. You advocate something other than laws and justice?

The rest of your post is nonsequitur.

[rhett o rick]

142. I support laws and justice. But the 99% should be treated the same as the 1%.

I am not that concerned with Snowden while Cheney walks free.

[treestar]

143. Should Cheney get due process if accused?

Should there have to be probable cause for a warrant for his arrest? Specific charges?

[alp227]

54. And when your disobedience stands up against agencies like CIA, FBI, etc.

you have NO IDEA what you're facing, the CIA and US Security Complex has been known to disappear subversives!

[Iliyah]

60. All my GAWDS sakes

Sounds exactly like a teabagger

[Major Hogwash]

64. It's the full moon.

Barking dogs at moon, happens every month.

[treestar]

134. And he ought to be in jail to make his point

I will give Bradley Manning he at least did that.

[delrem]

5. Lets be clear. The issue is the future of human rights in western democracies.

[frazzled]

7. LOL

Get the smelling salts, quick! It's Kim Jong Il all over again!

[delrem]

9. You think this is a laughing matter?

That only speaks about you.

[frazzled]

12. Yeah, and I think you're about a dozen years late ...

in getting all het up about it, acting like this is Argentina under the Junta. And I think that says something about you. Like you don't just not know the facts, but don't know how to think historically.

I just need you to provide a single example of human rights having been abused as a direct result of this program ... people being disappeared, say; or having been imprisoned just for thinking something; or even of government censorship of the Internet.

There have been and are currently examples of such things in the world. (China isn't a bad place to start these days.)

[delrem]

14. The program itself is an abuse of privacy.

[Tx4obama]

17. Supreme Court and other courts have ruled meta-data isn't protected by the 4th amendment. n/t

[delrem]

19. "meta-data" wasn't even a concept in those times.

So we're not supposed to *think*?

meta-data isn't the only thing collected.
esp. see the latest revelations.

How can you be so blase? Are you totally numb?

[sheshe2]

33. Link Please!

meta-data isn't the only thing collected.
esp. see the latest revelations.

Thanks in advanced for your link!

[delrem]

69. Here's one. But I doubt that you're interested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/22/nsa-leaks-britain-us-surveillance

[progressoid]

108. Supreme court has also declared corporations people.

The actions of the supreme court are clearly fallible. They are hardly a beacon of justice lately.

[treestar]

136. You're against surveillance completely?

So, no complaints against the Bush administration for 911 - they should not have even tried. No complaints against the Obama administration regarding the Marathon bombing? They should not even have accepted the Russian surveillance (which is likely a real abuse of privacy)

[delrem]

16. Do you deny that people have been "disappeared"?

Do you deny that people have been droned just for saying something, or being the 16 yr old son of someone who said something?

Just how out of contact are you? Are you truly happy that a Republican like Jeb, or worse, will someday be inheriting these programs? Do you really think that a total-information sweep like this hasn't threaten democracy? Considering the latest info coming out, would you actually *deny* the existence of a total information sweep? Do you really think that the info collected isn't *used* for a bit more than "getting al qaeda"? How can you be so numb?

[Tx4obama]

18. Oh christ. Not that shit again. The 16 yr old was not the target of the drone.

It was alBana who was the target of the drone and no one in the US government knew that the kid was in the car until after the drone attack.

If a person rides around in a car with known terrorists there's a chance that person will be at the wrong place at the wrong time when a drone shows up.

Give it a rest.

[delrem]

20. Ah, the "it was a coincidence" argument.

Do you not care about human life?

[Hekate]

37. Well, we could send the US Army and the US Air Force, like Bush/Cheney did. Now there's a good idea.

Let's invade a whole country to get one man! There sure won't be any innocent bystanders killed that way, will there?

As for that argument about Jeb, are you aware that recently, in a publicly-aired speech, President Obama told Congress that it was time to take the country off permanent war footing and reduce his presidential powers?

I have asked that latter question many times here of late, and not one of the persons I have put it to has answered.

[delrem]

39. so why the fuck does he always do the opposite?????

[Hekate]

51. Why does he do the opposite of what?

[delrem]

52. ah, you joke. very funny. haha

[Hekate]

65. No, you genuinely did not make sense

Which of my statements is he doing the opposite of?

[TheMadMonk]

98. Damned near his entire bloody campaign platform.

He's done very little to actually reign in or shut down these programs like he promised, but he's certainly installed a hell of a lot of fig leaves. Fig leaves which might cover, but in no way at all conceal that beneath them.

And told us to trust that he, and those that follow him will never abuse the powers they've arrogated.

And just to make us feel absolutely reassured, by word, action and deed, has signaled that the administration will pursue with incredible (one might even say pathological) vigour anyone who dares question (or worse embarrass) them.

[Union Scribe]

43. How about not invading countries

with either manned or unmanned air bombing campaigns?

[Hekate]

61. Why not target known suicide attackers before they blow themselves up here?

Why not target their leaders before they train more of their kind?

Bush and the Neocons thought it was manly and patriotic and all that crap to start a conventional war instead of treating the big hole in the ground in NY City as a crime scene of monumental proportions. Starting a conventional war suited their imperialistic aims, but was also the way they thought. If someone attacks us, they must be a country. Attack a country. Then attack another one.

Obama is NOT "invading countries." He IS being much, much more subtle, and has managed to disrupt and dismember the organizations that caused us so much harm. From what I have read, the people who make it past our defenses to harm us are pretty much acting alone by now. The Boston Marathon bombers weren't soldiers of any description. Treat them (or the surviving one) as the criminals they are, and don't go invading their country of origin in the name of a "global war on terror."

Given the situation we find ourself in, what would YOU do? I would love to have an alternative explained to me.

[Union Scribe]

83. A "known suicide attacker" would already be dead.

I also don't really get the dissonance in your post. I also think 9/11 should have been handled in a law enforcement rather than war mindset. But then you defend bombing people? That's a war mindset whether it's a drone or a fighter plane. Hellfire missiles don't keep us safer. And obviously neither does surveillance.

[Hekate]

85. Suppose you are the leader of a nation, perhaps this one. What. Would. You. Do?

[Union Scribe]

92. So many things.

But I assume you just mean on the topic of national security. The biggest problem is that people think there's some enormous segment of the world's population that exists only to think of ways to attack the U.S. The truth is that even among violent radicals the U.S. most enters their minds when we exert power in their countries. So I'd:

1. Stop creating ill will in other nations by stopping the belligerent foreign policy of my recent predecessors.
2. Stop wasting money and man-hours by halting the FBI's idiotic practice of long term entrapment operations that promise to arm potential radicals then proclaiming to have stopped an attack.
3. Push, constantly, for the closure of Gitmo.
4. Focus on international law enforcement, information sharing, and working with governments to take any suspects into custody
5. Keep The U.S. out of foreign revolutions, civil wars, and nation building
6. Keep other, non-problematic law enforcement activities in place

Now, that's all about foreign terrorism. But the far greater threat, the kind of terrorist who kill many many more people than any AQ agent, is the home-grown lone wolf. Drones don't help that. Surveillance doesn't help that. Better gun control would help, as does the vigilance of the people, who will always have the advantage of numbers over any law enforcement.

Those are my 330am thoughts.

[Hekate]

97. I was half an hour into writing you a nice response when my browser quit

Such is life.

Thank you for what you said -- it mostly accords with my thinking, but I am too brain-tired now to try to recap.

Will only say this regarding the "lone wolf" American: look up the phrase "stochastic terrorism" to see how the unhinged are primed to blow by the rantings of the RW media. Sure they act alone, but they were very often loaded and aimed by a steady diet of O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, and the rest of the vomitous gang.

[treestar]

137. So you support that idea there should be no attempt whatsoever to head off terrorists attacks here

No surveillance, nothing. We should just let the attacks occur and then give trials to the perpetrators, if we can catch them in the US.

[SidDithers]

103. It's the end of the world as we know it!...

Sid

[frazzled]

6. Can dish it out but can't take it

I completely agree with you. This doesn't even come close to being an act of civil disobedience.

What is most irritating about the steal and flee act is not just the refusal to accept the consequences ... which is what truly moral seekers of justice do. It's the hiding out while maintaining a mouthpiece longer than the Great Wall of China, and then putting on a melodrama about how your life is in danger. And people eat up that pap.

I've been simmering at a slow boil about this creep for weeks now, but I feel it's time to stand up and call his bluff.

[Union Scribe]

11. "a melodrama about how your life is in danger"

That's actually the administration's line to justify this spying sham.

[LeftInTX]

79. I feel the same as you!

There is nothing democratic about him.

[dawg]

8. And why do you think he did it?

Right or wrong, he must have thought he was getting out information that the American public needed to have.

There is literally no upside to this for Mr. Snowden.

He might be wrong about everything, but he certainly must have thought he was doing the right thing. And he was willing to make a huge personal sacrifice in order to do so.

So, until you're ready to give up everything in order to make a principled stand, I suggest you stop judging him so harshly.

[Life Long Dem]

41. I don't know what he thought

Naomi Wolf feels he has motives that are more complex.

"I hate to do this but I feel obligated to share, as the story unfolds, my creeping concern that the NSA leaker is not who he purports to be, and that the motivations involved in the story may be more complex than they appear to be,"

https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be-/10151559239607949

[dawg]

104. If Naomi is right, then then things are even worse than any of us think.

She basically thinks he might be working *for* the administration: letting us know that we are all being watched, and then serving as a setup example of what happens to people who get out of line.

I really hope she is wrong and that the Obama administration is not so far gone as to use a plant to play intimidation games with us like that.

[Life Long Dem]

121. Yeah, I'm not exactly following her police state theory

[Sheepshank]

110. Why must we be told to assume that Snowden had a noble cause?

we know practically nothing about him, but are ridiculed for not making such an assumption. What if's can abound. What if, it were for money? What if he was cooerced? What if he had talked to one too many rabid anti Obamites and he 'thought' this was one way to bring him down? What if he had been convinced that Obama was a radical Muslim bron in Kenya and was trying to bring down Christianity, and he though this was stop Obama in his tracks? 'Cos you know, the noble cause of Christianity is paramount.

[dawg]

112. The point is that the guy obviously really believed in something ...

otherwise he would not have been willing to walk away from everything he ever knew.

What he believed may or may not be the truth. We can argue that all day long. But to say that he's a coward taking the easy way out is wrong on its face.

The easy way out would have been to go along to get along. Basically, what you and I do every day.

[Sheepshank]

114. That is not a point...it is an assumption based on the paradign you have created for yourself.

"The point is that the guy obviously really believed in something ..." We do not know the truth of the things you have assumed...nothing. People are making up shit to create a hero. We do not know what he believed in, we do not know if he willingly walked away from things loved, or not. We do not know if he is schitzo or of sound mind. We do not know if he has a noble cause or is a coward. We do not know anything of any of the things you have assumed...that is my point.

[dawg]

115. Yes, we do. It is a prima facie case.

You're right that we can't be sure *what* be believed. Maybe he is "schizo" - they believe things too. (Although I'm not too fond of the way you casually throw the mentally ill under the bus like that.) We don't know if he has a noble cause or not.

But we damn sure know that he *has* a cause. Whether it makes sense to us or not, he would not have done what he did unless he really believed in something.

The fact that you are unwilling to cede this very basic, self-evident point, says more about you than it does Edward Snowden.

[Sheepshank]

117. No...you are wrong. Prima Facie points to a national traitor. But that is under discussion, no?

And I don't use that term "traitor" lightly either (your assumption of my disparaging anyone is still part of your "assumptive syndrome&quot . On it's face, Snowden took goverment protected info that wasn't his to take, and gave it to a foreign government. Is there another description of traitor that doesn't meet those basic facts? Again, since I don't know the back story and niether do you, your assumption that there is a noble cause in all of this is misplaced....as are your other labels and judgements of the persons on DU.

[dawg]

119. We're talking about two different things.

You are talking about "hero" versus "traitor". You're talking about whether or not Snowden had a "noble" cause.

For the purposes of this argument, I'm being agnostic about all of that.

The only point I'm trying to get you to understand is that Snowden, in his own mind, *had* a cause. And it was a cause that he believed so strongly in that he was willing to put himself at significant risk.

For some reason, that makes your head explode. I don't know why. I'm not saying that his cause was necessarily something good, just that he had one. For some reason, you cannot accept this, even though it is self-evident.

Perhaps he just hates Obama. That is a cause. Perhaps he's a member of Al Queda. That is a cause. Perhaps he fears the NSA has gotten out of hand and is dangerous to our freedoms. That is a cause. Perhaps he thinks the aliens told him to leak the info. That is a cause.

Whatever the cause, and we could debate that endlessly, he HAS one. And he believes in it.

You say that prima facie points to him being a national traitor. Guess what? Wanting to take down the U.S. is a cause, too.

The fact that Snowden's opponents are not willing to believe that he has a cause at all is, to me, an indication of their unwillingness to honestly reflect on what that cause might actually be. It's much easier to just put your finger in your ears, sing "la la la" and throw insults at the man.

[Sheepshank]

123. "The only point I'm trying to get you to understand is that Snowden, in his own mind,*had* a cause."

and the rest of your narrative says we just don't know the true cause.

Aren't we NOW saying the same thing then?

I don't know who you are talking about with their fingers in the their ears singing "la la la", but I assure you your gripe isn't with me. From all that I have read here on DU, there isn't a post here that doesn't think Snowden has a case. The argument is more clearly centered around what possibilities of the cause may be.

[dawg]

124. So you admit he had a cause. One that he was willing to risk everything for?

That's all I'm trying to say. None of us can be inside the man's head to know for sure what it was.

[Sheepshank]

127. sure...I already gave you a list of possible causes? I don't understand what you are trying to imply

I'm not ready to concede that any of them were noble right now. The implication I have been reading over and over is that Snowden has an MLK rational behind his actions. not buying it one bit.

[Comrade Grumpy]

139. Snowden took information and gave it to the media, not "a foreign government."

Or did I miss something?

[treestar]

138. Good point

Love the way they believe everything Ed says when they just "met" him last week. And don't want it looked into at all. They demand we laud him as hero, unvetted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Trying hard still to personalize

huh?

[sheshe2]

21. Actually

I am looking for the truth. Not the post after post that Snowden is our Hero.

Facts, nadin that is what I am waiting for. Not the god awful posts that are condemning this President.

The front page is a hate fest. I am on DU am I not, nadin. For a moment I thought I was in OZ!

Facts that is what I am waiting for!

[Major Hogwash]

34. We're certainly not in Kansas anymore.

When someone claimed it was "character assassination" to criticize Snowden's actions last week, I knew they had no idea just how much damage Snowden had already done by that time.

[Iliyah]

38. And a few Americans who are free

calling our government a potential totalitarian regime and yes comparing Snowden with the likes of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mandela, PLEASSSSSSSSEEEEEEEE, how fucked is that.

Then you have states controlled by assholes, i.e. the party of no, taking their states rights away and where is the outrage in that?

None, zippoo, but hey, eff them as long as I have my privacy and if 000001% somewhere in the US someone dies or many who cares because at least I have my privacy. And yes Snowden is a coward and so is Greenwald.

[Union Scribe]

45. Let me get this straight.

Snowden and Greenwald are cowards, but you explicitly support giving up privacy for what you call a &quot .?)000001%" of dying from some terrorist they aren't going to catch with their spying anyway?

Hmmm, I think you might want to revisit your notion of cowardice.

Oh and, some of us can walk and chew gum. We have some weird ability to give a shit about more than one issue at a time.

[Iliyah]

56. Yes, I do.

0000001% are important and just as important as you are.

And yes, they are cowards, and I ain't gonna change on that at all.

I guess one life is as important to me as 100,000 lives and y'think the terrorst or whomever want to hurt Americans are going to settle for one?

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Facts is that this stopped being about Snowden a while ago

Or greenwald.

And that this revealed violations of incredible depth. No, it's not about Obama either, though he has a smidgen of more power than the other two. It is about Empire.

That is what this is about.

It matters little how many times this is explained to you guys. You will try to deflect and distract and go back to personalities.. Must be real frustrating the hippies (it's back, after the race card was laughed out of the room) are not taking the bait.

[BrotherIvan]

22. I can not ask any person to lay down their life

I could not do it, nor could I suspect all the authoritarians who are calling for Snowden's head could do it either. It's like people who went to hangings and yelled "Kill him!" It's blood lust beyond belief.

You are saying he should pay the ultimate price and submit to being jailed for a very long time, like Bradley Manning most likely will, who has also suffered torture and solitary confinement. Yet at the same time you say this is old news, it's not whistleblowing, etc. His allegations are completely false. Which one is it?

You are asking for a man to give up everything for embarrassing the NSA and the Administration. He must face the wrath of the most powerful government on the planet to satisfy you?

So I ask you, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

[hueymahl]

23. Well said. NT

[Egalitarian Thug]

29. No, they don't. The majority of Americans have lost, if they ever had, any sense

of decency. Do decent people ignore millions of homeless? Do decent people ignore hungry children? Do decent people close their eyes to their representatives murdering tens or hundreds of thousands of innocents merely to satisfy their own lust for vengeance?

We are Krishnamurti's profoundly sick society, and have been for most of my life.

[HardTimes99]

57. 1 in 5 American children experience at least one instance

of hunger each month. How fucking sick is that?

[sheshe2]

30. I have not asked anyone to lay down their life

You are asking for a man to give up everything for embarrassing the NSA and the Administration. He must face the wrath of the most powerful government on the planet to satisfy you?

No, BrotherIvan...I don't see anywhere that I asked that. So please do not project that on my OP!

As stated in Post #1 Tx4 obama

Snowden committed actual federal crimes related to THEFT:

18 USC 641 Theft of property and records

18 USC 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 USC 798 Disclosure of classified information

He broke the law...and he fled. He did not stand for what he said were his principles. And Ivan, I am a women, not a sir. My name here is sheshe.

I await the facts, Brother Ivan, I refuse to set my hair on fire before I know the facts. All of the facts!

[Lady Freedom Returns]

36. +1 on that sheshe2

[sheshe2]

53. Thank you

[Hekate]

68. +2 sheshe

[BrotherIvan]

145. Ok, if you like facts, here's some for you

1) Snowden has been charged with espionage which is a capital federal offense. So maybe fleeing to a country without extradition was a good idea.

2) The PRISM program is a classified secret program. We're not going to get all the *facts*! EVER.

3) I was able to infer your screen name meant you were female. The quote I used is historical. That's why it's in quotations.

[Tx4obama]

74. Snowden knew when he STOLE government records/property that he was committing felonies

So, YES he should face the consequences of his criminal actions.

It was HIS decision to break the law - therefore he needs to turn himself in and stand trial like a big boy.


Snowden committed actual federal crimes related to THEFT:

18 USC 641 Theft of property and records

18 USC 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 USC 798 Disclosure of classified information

[Lady Freedom Returns]

80. +1

[Taft_Bathtub]

24. Ironic you mentioned MLK...

Using the same technology and "understanding" of Constitutional law, the Federal Government wiretapped MLK's phones and used knowledge of his extra-marital affair to try to blackmail MLK.

The feds requested that MLK commit suicide or else they would reveal that he was cheating on his wife.

That's right, they told your hero to kill himself. The same government that is now calling Snowden a traitor, and you're buying it.

After seeing what happened to Bradley Manning, I don't blame Snowden at all for fleeing the country.

[liberal_at_heart]

28. +1

[HardTimes99]

59. + Infinity! - nt

[Iliyah]

67. And did he?

He kept marching on, and thats courage and by the way I never heard that story before tho.

MLK is a true hero. Snowden doesn't even come close and yeah run to a country that have no respect for their citizens, yeah right. And whats up with 'FREEDOM" coming from Hong Kong? The Chinese people are not free.

[Taft_Bathtub]

86. MLK clearly isn't Snowden

I'm not saying Snowden is MLK but I find it kind of odd that people are expecting him to go get tortured and locked up indefinitely in jail for the rest of his life. MLK never had to face that.

[Cha]

90. "Tortured"? Now you're just making a strong case for.. you don't

really have an idea what you're talking about.

Snowden's a coward compared to MLK. And, if Snowden didn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail.. he shouldn't have done the crime.

[Taft_Bathtub]

93. The US tortures American Citizens

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/01/1166253/-The-Torture-Techniques-Used-on-Bradley-Manning

I don't think you understand what you're talking about. You can apologize for Obama all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the nation tortures citizens who whistleblow on crimes carried out by the government.

[sheshe2]

70. Could you please give me that link!

Holy effing shit!

The feds requested that MLK commit suicide or else they would reveal that he was cheating on his wife.

That's right, they told your hero to kill himself. The same government that is now calling Snowden a traitor, and you're buying it.

[Taft_Bathtub]

81. Here you go, it's pretty mean what they wrote to him

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/21/the-fbi-wrote-a-letter-to-martin-luther-king-telling-him-to-commit-suicide/

[sheshe2]

76. Could you please give me that link!

Holy effing shit!

The feds requested that MLK commit suicide or else they would reveal that he was cheating on his wife.

That's right, they told your hero to kill himself. The same government that is now calling Snowden a traitor, and you're buying it.

Seriously!?

You do have a link to that do you not!

You do Taft_Bathtub,l am correct in what you stated you have the links...yes?

I await your post. With bated breath!

[Tx4obama]

77. The 'same government' ??? NO. The majority of those folks are either retired or DEAD

J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

COINTELPRO covert operations ended in 1971

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

[Taft_Bathtub]

82. The US still does this sort of stuff

As recently as the Occupy Wall Street protests, homes of organizers have been raided by police, people intimidated by law enforcement, pre-emptive arrests for no good reason other than harassment, etc. Post 9/11 you had police infiltrating peaceful protest groups as documented in Fahrenheit 911. Arrests and intimidation of journalists (Amy Goodman).

The government still actively cracks down on dissent that threatens the status quo.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Would that include slaves and draft resistors who fled to Canada?

I would call what they did "civil disobedience". Wouldn't you?

[sheshe2]

84. I do believe

That you will thrash and trash our President where ever you go, Tierra.

You have made that clear.

Slaves??? and Draft resisters WTF are you talking about!...!????!!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

26. OTOH, he also didn't cash in on it as he certainly could have. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

27. this is not about Snowden or even Obama. This is about the NSA and the law that allows them

to spy on citizens without probable cause. The law must be changed and the government must stop spying on citizens without probable cause.

[Hekate]

48. Yet the loudest posters here make it ALL about Snowden and about Obama.

I am very disturbed about this spying hangover from the BUSH/CHENEY/NEOCON administration, as I am angered about the USA PATRIOT ACT passed immediately after 9-11 by a panicked and opportunistic Congress and never repealed.

I am disturbed and sad for my country that this poison remains and spreads. I knew we would be unlikely to undo all of the Neocon damage in my lifetime, even by electing the best candidate we had.

I find it reprehensible beyond words that the man we elected president twice has met unwavering opposition from what used to be called "the loyal opposition" in Congress, and endless lies from far-right shills.

I grieve that instead of Democrats having his back and uniting to point out and oppose the true sources of evil that plague us -- the far right wing, the corporatists, and their bought and paid for media shills and Representatives and Senators -- that instead many on the left can only unite around the theme: It's all Obama's fault.

Having his back doesn't mean thinking Obama is a god. Holding his feet to the fire (which I don't think is his phrase) doesn't mean endless attacks.

There is no place at all to go at DU where I can express my doubts, concerns, worries, and even anger over what is taking place in my country, and sort out causes, sources, and find objective analysis. To say I still like the POTUS but wonder if he has taken a wrong turn or not invites derision. To express concerns invites frothing-at-the-mouth rage.

Cry, the beloved country.

[LeftInTX]

87. Agree

[TheKentuckian]

144. I don't understand how you fantasy unfolds in reality.

How can deal with the poison hangover and have the back of someone who seems pretty serious about continuing it?

How do we go after the originators if they are protected by or leadership? How do we settle the corporatist while strengthening them and putting them in all key positions?

How do we stop assaults on our liberties and what it means to be a citizen while steadfastly "having the back" of an assaulter (however he came to be such)?

What is it that we are supposed to be rallying around, Hekate? Apparently the President but it doesn't make any sense in context. I don't see how that manages to beat back the problems, the Administration is part of the problem. Not the point of origin, not the sole source but in arguably a part of the problem both here in other areas, some of which fit into a rather unpleasant and extremely dangerous picture with the drone proliferation, the standing up and declaring himself sole arbiter of life and death, the zealous pushing of the drug war, going after whistle blowers, going after press sources, the recycled TeaPubliKlan torture mongers and corporatist in the cabinet, the evil of declaring males of a certain age that happen to get hit by our missiles to be combatants, jumping into a civil war in Yemen and supporting a dictator rather than leaving it alone, the BP wipe and dangle, supporting incumbents that supposedly derail the agenda and opposing those who would support progress, pushing these globalist free trade agreements.

We don't even have to bring in the regressive forces in economics and certainly in education to discussion but they also support a powerful fog of stink and rot that are dangers to the self determination of a free people.

What the hell are we rallying around? I really don't get it at this point, we can only get his back when he is facing the right direction. When he finds himself not just being attacked by the regressives but actual opposes them then the army at his back would be legion but he chooses the "third way" and that makes him opposition, folks can't go where he leads so his support is dicey at best, much like yours is so conflicted that it is closer to collapse from internal exhaustion that it is its self a series of internal "deals" that foster largely baseless hope greased by faith disguised as trust.

One cannot serve two masters in fundamental conflict, Hekate. I cannot even try to, I don't function with much cognitive dissonance, my "master" or prime directives are never difficult to figure out. A passing thing like a politician has no chance, my values and principles will still be there after a pol has come and gone, IF I DO NOT ABANDON THEM, leaving myself with nothing.

Politicians and parties are tools to achieve ends, not the ends themselves.

Take away the character 'Obama' and take away that of "Snowden" and what remains is the truth. Deal with that truth and your opinion of the cast will sort its self out.

Put to the side the who's and focus on the what's and things become clear based on the laws written on your heart.
Concentrate on why you joined the fight rather than the cast and the labels. Find out what your side is on the issues and then see who is where and the "sides" take on a different look and those you'd prefer be there may not honestly be there and your powerful comrades in arms may be fewer than your most pessimistic projection.

Is there really significant value in plumbing the differences in the agendas of Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers or are they almost infinitely closer to being on the same side and we on another? They aren't exactly the same but they are far closer to such than either is to me even if one could come up with honest assessments of how one is closer to us than the other. The commonalities far outweigh the shades of gray differences sought out as signs of shared cause.

You cannot fight and serve the same ends. What and why trump who and when, the latter are color commentary on the former. One cannot determine who on their side until they first discern what their side is. Where do you stand determines who stands with you and who's back you have. What is the commandment screamed out by your soul, if you don't hear it are you listening? Separate the conflict and make yourself choose with an honesty understanding of why and move on in good conscience so you can be unapologetic and forthright in those convictions.

The difficulty with getting Obama (or the Clintons or far too many of our Senators for that matter) is I keep seeing them coming from the other direction and I can't help that nor can I see clear to absolve the majority of them in going right along often without a whimper of protest and more regularly joining in at the roots of many of the ills that plague us. Surveillance/Security state, deregulation, neocon exploits, free trade, and corporatizing are all via bipartisan consensus, we at least have a some that might oppose but all this shit pretty much comes down with at least veto proof majorities and on such there is little to no obstruction or foot dragging.

No matter how rancorous, certain very toxic shit ALWAYS manages to go right through without a fuss. How? How do bodies incapable of things like raising the pedestrian ass debt ceiling manage to work out big structural perversions over a late night, quick cup of coffee? Fight over Democrats passing GingrichCare for a year but effectively dictating indefinite detention gets knocked right the hell out with not even the threat of a constitutional showdown??? Really?

Things are not as they appear, we can only hazard educated guesses on how things really are, I fully grant but that is no reason to pretend things are as they would appear until you figure out what is really going on because the pretense prevents further discernment because you are doing something called walking in faith whether it is your intention or not. One is acting as though something is that is not.

[LeftInTX]

89. Snowden seems to be making it about himself

That is how I see it.
He could have done this differently.

He could have leaked a few documents then gone off to a deserted isle or straight to Iceland. Instead he is leaking stuff about the UK, which conveniently appeared after he was put on their no fly list. Then he leaks about our intel to the Chinese. Why did he do that? I think he did it to be manipulative. I think he did it court the Hong Kong govt so they would grant him asylum. This is no longer about the NSA and spying on US citizens.

[Iliyah]

31. Thanks!

MLK is a true American Hero. He brought people together walking hand and hand.

[Coccydynia]

44. We get it already. Messenger shot, message ignored.

I guess I don't understand what makes MLK so special. After all, Southern racism and Jim Crow laws were old news back in the day. And MLK was a known communist and adulterer. I think MLK was trying to make Kennedy look bad back 1963. I think MLK was a Catholic hater. And it worked, too, as JFK was assassinated two months later.

For the censor happy crowd: This is snark. MLK was a great man. But I hope you get the point. It's the message, not the messenger. And injustice requires constant reminder, particularly in the sound bite era of today.

[Hekate]

73. A bit over the top, even for a pain in the butt

Sheshe's not shooting any messengers.

[Coccydynia]

91. Maybe.

I'm just wondering when Snowden not being worthy of anything will become old news like the loss of the 4th Amendment is apparently old news, and therefore is now unworthy of revisiting with deserved outrage.

There are reasons why everyone can't be an MLK or a Gandhi. People do what they can. Some just yap online like me. Others destroy their futures like Snowden. And some lead a movement.

[mhatrw]

47. Let's be clear. People who spy on us and try to keep that from us are criminals.

Whistle blowers who expose such criminals are heroes.

[ucrdem]

49. DU rec!

[Taverner]

50. Oh he knew there were consequences, and he knew they were inevitable

His stay in Hong Kong is a small vacation until he is taken into custody, and we never hear from him again.

This is going to happen.

We might not know it when it does, but it will happen.

And he knows this as well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. The Dalai Lama avoided the consequences of his "law breaking" and fled.

[Hekate]

72. Apples. Cornish pasty.

Not even in the same category.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

58. This is based on a talking point....

Those who have it in for him came up with this nonsense to mock anyone who supports what he did.

It's like when we said that we didn't want to invade Iraq and the Right Wing would claim we loved Saddam. Then said we wanted to have sex with Saddam.

Besides, you can't have it both ways. You can't be glad the NSA was exposed for spying on Americans and then claim the guy who told you shouldn't have exposed it.

[avaistheone1]

88. +10

k&r

[Cha]

75. Very good analysis, from smartypants, she..

thank you! I love her definition of Civil Disobedience.

there's so much off about Snowden and more will come out but "civil disobedience" it ain't. Snowden wants to be as comfortable as possible without paying any price. Isn't that what libertarians do?

[great white snark]

106. "comfortable as possible without paying any price. Isn't that what libertarians do?"

They wouldn't know what to do if they were burdened with the responsibility of being a party that actually governs and makes policy.

Thanks for your much appreciated input in sheshe2's call for truth OP.

[Cha]

146. Hey great white snark!

thank you.

[LeftInTX]

78. I did not vote for Edward Snowden or his agenda!!!!!!!!!

Sure if he would have leaked a few things and gone to some deserted isle where he would be forgotten then it wouldn't have been so bad.

But I feel that he is manipulating. He keeps promising more leaks: "The truth is coming and no one can stop it". It is threatening. He's using our intel about the Chinese so he can get a free pass in Hong Kong/China. It's all about him. In some respects it's almost like a blackmail. Flame me all you want.


He could have gone another route: He could have started his own Pirate Party here in the US like they have in Iceland and Sweden and could have run for office!!!

[Tx4obama]

94. Breaking: Edward Snowden 'leaves Hong Kong on Moscow flight'

Edward Snowden 'leaves Hong Kong on Moscow flight'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014515687

[Lady Freedom Returns]

95. Makes since if he could not get a deal with the Chines for whatever he's stolen. n/t

[cali]

96. Has he claimed what he did was an act of civil disobedience?

[nolabels]

101. My guess from the way some of the posters and the OP pontificates is they would have us believe....

that somehow Snowden has even put them up to it. I can be great comedy though, these trolls will often post such bald faced lies that often even a sentence will contradict itself

[JoeyT]

116. Look what they did to Manning.

He was right to run. Even if you don't think he was right to leak, running like his ass was on fire was the smart thing to do. Anyone that claims they'd have stuck around to be treated like Manning is either crazy or lying.

[wtmusic]

126. No.

Snowden would never have had the chance to get his message out by doing so publicly.

It's quite possible that had MLK had his moment in today's security environment, you never would have heard of him.

Naive.

[treestar]

131. Not to mention that there's nothing inherently wrong with having a security apparatus

Whereas the Jim Crow laws were wrong.

Some of these posters are nuts if they think we really can do without any security whatsoever.

[Corruption Inc]

149. Thanks, I use character assassination threads such as these...

to ignore people who think I should be spied on and are incapable of even discussing it.

Not that I'll be reading any response of yours but for the benefit of others who may be, just what is it that you believe in that makes you think you have anything in common with democratic voters?

BYE.