General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's Not About Snowden, But He's A Hero ?
That's like saying: It's not about Joe Montana, but he won Super Bowl MVP.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He was a big hero on DU.
Then he left the US. Some realized this was not looking so good and started saying it wasn't about him now.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)"Then he left the US. Some realized this was not looking so good and started saying it wasn't about him now."
What's even more enlightening is that those who hailed him as hero pretend not be at all suspect that his "path to freedom" from US tyranny, include stops in China & Russia? Sounds like he's off to Ecuador where he'll be greeted with flowers & candies.
Ecuador Recently Passed Law Further Restricting Press Freedom
The Committee to Protect Journalists has said Ecuador is engaged in widespread repression of the media.
posted on June 23, 2013 at 1:55pm EDT
Andrew Kaczynski
"NSA leak source Edward Snowden is seeking asylum in Ecuador, the countrys foreign ministry said Sunday on Twitter. Snowden landed Sunday at Moscows Sheremetyevo International Airport but is not expected to stay in the country. Snowden, who is receiving help from the Wikileaks organization, had his passport revoked Saturday according to ABC News.
Ecuador has a poor record of press freedom of its own, however. Last Friday, Ecuador legislature passed a restrictive media law by a 108-26 margin that was heralded by the countrys President Rafael Correa.
The bill contained 119 articles, according to a report from the Associated Press, one of which outlawed so-called media lynching which the law stated was having negative effect on person or institutions image without sufficient evidence. Criminal charges can be brought against journalists who violate the law."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/ecuador-recently-passed-law-restricting-press-freedom
If you ask me, his movements since fleeing the country, don't speak to his quest for the openess
and transparency in government that he claims. This seems more about embarrassing his home country, and every country on the planet will line up to embrace him if it takes a chunk out of the last superpower. I hope he'll be happy in his new home.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I wonder if they have any judicial review or protection from that kind of law? Julian and Ed ought to be a little more - concerned about why Ecuador is so willing to take them.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Cuba and Venezuela. Pattern? I'm waiting for the ticker tap parade. Just watch, people will say "oh it won't happen". It will happen it's just a matter of which country will use him as a propaganda tool first.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)thing in common. They have worse human rights records than the country he fled. As noble as some think his initial actions were, everything since points to a more sinister motive, and I think that puts him out of most American's comfort zone. In the early days of his revelations, something like 53% were against domestic surveillance, but an equal number thought he should be prosecuted as well.
After the initial frenzy, the media is now beginning to ask serious questions about Snowden, and that's why we're being treated to refrains of "Leave Eddie Alone" by his fans.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)vdogg
(1,384 posts)That wasn't outed until well after the NSA story broke. Nobody knew where he was until Greenwald had that interview with him.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)was awkwardly presented. That is why I asked for clarification.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)When Snowden's location was used as an organized campaign to attack the messenger (and ignore the message), a good deal of people who only care about the issue of government spying wish to focus only on that issue instead of the distraction.
Not only was his location used, but also his Pole-Dancing girlfriend, education level, and general awkward demeanor.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)He had a national security clearance. How do we know he was actually given a proper background check? It appears that the security clearances were going through another company that was contracted and did a pretty shitty job of doing them. Is it possible for him to have other motives? Sure it is. I want to know about his background check and whether it was done appropriately. These contractors should not be trusted for background checks. It seems like very few people on DU are talking about this or even care.
So true about the timing.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)period. It never was. It never will be. Stop trying to make it. Forget he exists.
pssst. Its about the government domestic spying
Grassy Knoll
(10,118 posts)And This guy who didn't have info on Bush can go to hell, hell, hell!!!
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And similarly, Im not sure why it matters at all who is the shit sandwich salesman is who is in charge when leaks happen. The highest relevance it has is how many people who are willing to forget, forgive, accept and love abuse when their chosen leader is polishing the turd.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)those who deified him literally within hours of even knowing he existed, that it "wasn't about him" when the "facts about him" started to look decidedly unheroic - even downright suspect.
Snowden made this about himself. Greenwald continues to make it about Snowden, as well as about HIMSELF.
Snowden's many assertions about being able to obtain any info on anyone, including the president, have yet to be proven.
In summary: Before you declare someone the Greatest American Hero, it might be a good idea to find out WHO that person is before doing so. Otherwise you wind up with egg on your face, stomping up and down while shouting, "It's not about HIM! Forget HE exists!"
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Any names? Do they exist?
Snowden made this about himself. Greenwald continues to make it about Snowden, as well as about HIMSELF.
I don't disagree. Ego is what ego does. But are we so stupid to be led around by a bunch of fame-obsessed personalities away from the core issue? Are we?
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Are you really going to sit there and tell me you don't know who the Snowden hero-worshippers are on this site?
Go back to the date when the Snowden story broke and read the threads - the over-the-top gushing was embarrassing.
And if you can't be bothered to do that, just look at the many posts over the past few days where he is praised for being a courageous young man who 'gave up everything' in order to speak the truth.
And BTW, I am not "railing" against anyone. In fact, I feel rather sorry for those who decided to leap before they looked, and are now desperately trying to spin Snowden's story rather than admit they were wrong.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Please realize that there are also other types of people including:
1) Those who never gave too much of a damn about Snowden but do not like government spying
2) Those who don't care about any issue, but only how it reflects on their favorite candidates, thereby willing to smear people for political reasons
And many more. There are many people chiming in who don't fit perhaps who you identify with, or the people you seem to be in an argument against. So its really not even a black and white narrative going on here at all, as this entire thread is dedicated to
Maybe we all need to recognize the other people at the end of the screen might not encapsulate the particular image they think they do. I mean, its not like we have super PRISM-like algorithms for figuring this stuff out.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)That works both ways. And I think it's obvious that here on DU, there are many who also don't care about this issue as much as they profess to, so much as they care about how badly they hope it reflects on a President they've been bitching about since day one of his presidency.
That certainly accounts for the Snowden hero-worship that began before anyone knew anything about the man. The anti-Obama crowd saw someone they thought held the smoking gun that would destroy him, and couldn't wait to jump on that bandwagon.
Do you always take the word of someone you don't know anything about? That's exactly what a lot of folks did here - gee, I wonder why?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Define a lot. 3. 6.
Look, every conceivable "angle" that would suggest SOME people are interested in this for ulterior motives might be held true by at least a few fringe. But its not exactly helpful to form your core argument under the assumption that every person who doesn't agree with you has an ulterior motive.
Occam's razor. Maybe its just very likely that people who are claiming to be against government spying and focused primarily on that issue just really are because they just really don't like being spied on. Yes, its possible.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)that most of the people who have weighed-in on this issue are sincere in their interest.
But there are a lot of folks here who are, shall we say, 'less than sincere' in representing themselves as Democrats, or liberals, or progressives. And they LOVE stirring the pot for the sake of stirring, and not because they're actually interested in what's in the pot.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But lets stop arguing to the lowest common denominator, so we can actually start debating the real issues that concern the majority of the normal people (non-ulterior motive types) like intrusive government spying.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Did Snowden tell me anything I didn't know before?
No, he didn't.
Do I think that the gov't storing my phone records, along with millions upon millions of others, constitutes "intrusive spying" - or "spying" of any description?
No, I don't.
Do I think that the gov't is going to search out my needle, or anyone else's needle, in that enormous haystack they're building in order to "get me"?
No, I don't.
Do I think
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)to have thousands of documents in his possession, and some he's already released have to do with diplomatic relations and spying on other countries.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Or are you advocating Snowden releases the rest of his documents?
Or should we forget about the program and just try and figure out the real question: Boxers of briefs?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Of course I hope these programs are openly debated. But Snowden's going to release whatever he wants, no matter what the US congress does.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022994058
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022978352
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=506504
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2989047
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018407545
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=506496
That's just the result of a very quick site search. There's plenty more where those came from.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I distinguish between the act and the person. I think the leaks were and are a good thing and hope for more to come.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)He's making it about the US spying on other foreign powers that spy on us.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Answer given upthread.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)I think leaving was a bad idea, though I could certainly Understand his reasoning. Still, considering how the government has scrambled, and how desperate they are to focus the discussion on Snowden himself tells you he probably did something that most liberals would normally cheer for. And, no, the program is not legal, and it' s not right.