Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?

[Catherina]

June 24, 2013
Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?
Posted by John Cassidy



...

More unnerving is the way in which various members of the media have failed to challenge the official line. Nobody should be surprised to see the New York Post running the headline: “ROGUES’ GALLERY: SNOWDEN JOINS LONG LIST OF NOTORIOUS, GUTLESS TRAITORS FLEEING TO RUSSIA.” But where are Snowden’s defenders? As of Monday, the editorial pages of the Times and the Washington Post, the two most influential papers in the country, hadn’t even addressed the Obama Administration’s decision to charge Snowden with two counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of theft.

...

After being criticized on Twitter, Gregory said that he wasn’t taking a position on Snowden’s actions; he was merely asking a question. I’m all for journalists asking awkward questions, too. But why aren’t more of them being directed at Hayden and Feinstein and Obama, who are clearly intent on attacking the messenger?

To get a different perspective on Snowden and his disclosures, here’s a portion of an interview that ABC—the Australian Broadcasting Company, not the Disney subsidiary—did today with Thomas Drake, another former N.S.A. employee, who, in 2010, was charged with espionage for revealing details about an electronic-eavesdropping project called Trailblazer, a precursor to Operation Prism, one of the programs that Snowden documented. (The felony cases against Drake, as my colleague Jane Mayer has written, eventually collapsed, and he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.)

INTERVIEWER: Not everybody thinks Edward Snowden did the right thing. I presume you do…

DRAKE: I consider Edward Snowden as a whistle-blower. I know some have called him a hero, some have called him a traitor. I focus on what he disclosed. I don’t focus on him as a person. He had a belief that what he was exposed to—U.S. actions in secret—were violating human rights and privacy on a very, very large scale, far beyond anything that had been admitted to date by the government. In the public interest, he made that available.

INTERVIEWER: What do you say to the argument, advanced by those with the opposite viewpoint to you, especially in the U.S. Congress and the White House, that Edward Snowden is a traitor who made a narcissistic decision that he personally had a right to decide what public information should be in the public domain?

DRAKE: That’s a government meme, a government cover—that’s a government story. The government is desperate to not deal with the actual exposures, the content of the disclosures. Because they do reveal a vast, systemic, institutionalized, industrial-scale Leviathan surveillance state that has clearly gone far beyond the original mandate to deal with terrorism—far beyond.

As far as I’m concerned, that about covers it. I wish Snowden had followed Drake’s example and remained on U.S. soil to fight the charges against him. But I can’t condemn him for seeking refuge in some place that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the United States. If he’d stayed here, he would almost certainly be in custody, with every prospect of staying in a cell until 2043 or later. The Obama Administration doesn’t want him to come home and contribute to the debate about national security versus liberty that the President says is necessary. It wants to lock him up for a long time.

...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/demonizing-edward-snowden-which-side-are-you-on.html

[NaturalHigh]

1. Neither side.

I can be pissed off about the NSA and still admit that Snowden broke the law.

[ucrdem]

2. The big fish here is Greenwald, not Snowden.

Let's go fishin'.

[Whisp]

5. Let's go fishin'...

[sabrina 1]

9. Any opinion on Drake's statements on how far the government has gone in the destruction of

our Constitutional Rights? Eg, why do you think they are doing it? Is it for money, a lot of people believe it is for Big Business, this data mining of everyone in the US. Or is it for control of the population, some people believe that.

I'm with the 'follow the money' crowd. Especially when you take into account the revolving door between these huge multi billion dollar Security Corps like Booz Allen, Clapper's Corporation, Clapper, now Director of Intelligence. Does seem right to you?

[wilsonbooks]

23. I think that if we could follow the money of

some of the posters here we would find out why so many of them are anxious to distort the story away from the fact that the government is engaged is a massive spying operation upon it's citizens. They would like to make the story about Greenwald and Snowden and not the secret military industrial complex.

[orpupilofnature57]

34. Cat got out of the bag in 1961 .

[snot]

69. Both.

[ucrdem]

10. Ah, summer . . .

[zappaman]

14. Did you see that episode?

That fucking thing lives in a river!!!!
The Goliath Fish is far more interesting than the Snowden Weasel.

[ucrdem]

17. Goliath fish.

Who knew?

[Whisp]

22. Husband loves that show!

I think he has a bit of a crush on that guy too.

[ucrdem]

24. Another trophy for Holder.

he collects them I hear . . .

[Hissyspit]

47. Oh, look. You've proved all your libels and debunked misrepresentations with a picture.

[sabrina 1]

8. So what do you think of what has been revealed? Drake is certainly a credible source and has been

awarded for the stand he took for our country against the Surveillance State. You haven't offered any opinion on the actual issue itself. Are you FOR or AGAINST the obvious violations of human rights and the Constitutional Rights of the American people?

[ucrdem]

12. Nothing has been revealed that I didn't know 5 years ago. nt

[sabrina 1]

16. That's not an answer. Why wasn't something done about it five years if it was all so well known?

The President doesn't agree with you btw, he says these are 'leaks'.

And if it was all public knowledge, then Snowden did nothing other than simply repeat what was out there already, right?


So which is it, is the President wrong, and this is all just old stuff everyone knew about? And the even more important question, since it is in violation of the Constitution, why was nothing done about it?

Are Wyden, Leahy, Nadler, Scott and all the other Dems wrong also? This is just 'old stuff'?

This is a discussion forum, it used to be a good one. Why do people, and no offense, but that includes you, not have any interest in discussing what the whole world is discussing?

[ucrdem]

19. I guess some people weren't paying attention. Ask them.

The ones that were voted for Obama-Biden twice and got a good deal. GG-gate is strictly for the low-information "independent" crowd.

[sabrina 1]

30. Still no answer. I was paying very, very close attention. GG was an excellent source on Bush's spy

programs. Sen. Leahy among others, John Conyers comes to mind, tried to do something about these illegal programs but, we were told, we would 'have to wait until we controlled Congress and the WH'. We did that, Obama was my candidate, he had not supported the Iraq war, and was eloquent on these issues, citing the Constitution regularly. I was impressed, after Bush who called it a 'quaint document' and muttered something about how he wished he could be a dictator, but that document, it was a pain for him.

You referred to a 'low information crowd'. I remember them, the Faux Viewers, they supported all these policies and slammed people like Sen Leahy, accused of him 'compromising National Security' and Conyers, I was one of the first people who posted on his blog and witnessed the vicious attacks on him for daring to stand up for the Constitution, re these Bush policies of spying on the American people.

I defended him, slammed those 'low information' people, advised him that it was okay to ban them. They were vicious in their defense of the Surveillance State, using disgusting racial epithets right on Conyers' blog. We urged him to block them, that it was okay to do so.

Conyers then wrote a book. I am proud to say I was part of that effort. The title was the 'The Constitution in Crisis' and Conyers in his daily blogs asked us for input re the abuses of the Bush Admin and we were more than happy to oblige.

We were Democrats, we defended the Constitution, this country, from policies that violated the Constitution .... but I edigress ...

Were you referring to ME as part of the 'low information crowd'? If so I will be more than happy to prove you wrong. Been accused of a lot more than that by Right Wingers so don't worry, it won't bother me in the least if that was your intention. But I WILL set THAT record straight, make no mistake about it.

[ucrdem]

43. I answered your questions, but feel free to express. nt

[sabrina 1]

52. Actually no, you haven't answered a single one of my questions, not that you have to. But I, eg,

would have no problem answering any question you might want to ask me.

A very wise, elderly woman told me once 'the truth never changes'. That is so true. Greenwald and I and millions of people around the world have been on the side of the facts for over a decade now. When you don't shift your position, it is not difficult to answer questions about it. I have observed that when someone finds themselves torn between the truth and loyalty to human entity, org, or individual, they tend to avoid discussions about what they claim, or claimed to believe in. That is a difficult position to be in. Which is why, sticking to the truth, the facts, and not being influenced by other factors, is always the best course. If nothing else, it makes life a lot easier. Just stick to the principles you claim to hold, and you cannot go wrong, no matter what is thrown your way..

[Hissyspit]

31. Not that you have any facts to back that up.

[truebluegreen]

32. Greenwald is the big fish?

What does that mean, exactly?

[Hissyspit]

55. It doesn't have to mean anything.

That's not how this works.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I am on the side of the Constitution

And the latest beltway theory is hilarious

[OilemFirchen]

50. Ergo, if you do not agree with this poster...

you are on the side of the, erh, uhm... unconstitution.

Time for we unconstitutionalismists to unite. Or else!

[bigwillq]

4. It's bigger than just one man.

I don't think Snowden is a hero nor do I think he's a POS, but it's bigger than him.
He is just one man.
We need to take the focus off of him and put it on the people that are allowing the spying, phone taps, hacked e-mails, etc, to happen.

[sabrina 1]

6. If only we had a free press. Thanks for an example of how a free press conducts an interview on

an important issue:

DRAKE: I consider Edward Snowden as a whistle-blower. I know some have called him a hero, some have called him a traitor. I focus on what he disclosed. I don’t focus on him as a person. He had a belief that what he was exposed to—U.S. actions in secret—were violating human rights and privacy on a very, very large scale, far beyond anything that had been admitted to date by the government. In the public interest, he made that available.

Drake did everything according to the rules on Whistle Blowers, went through all the correct channels according to the book. And look what they did to him anyhow.

I'm sure he, more than anyone, understands the emptiness of the charge that 'Snowden should have used the Whistle Blower law'.

The Violations of Human Rights doesn't seem to bother some former supporters of Human Rights. Situational ethics, the kind the criminals, War Criminals, Wall St. Criminals depend on to keep them in business.

Anger towards these blind partisans is growing, on both sides, as it becomes more and more clear how they help the destruction of our rights and how they allow themselves to be used.

[Autumn]

7. For sometime now we have watched the powerful and the wealthy

break laws and get away with it. A sitting vice president and his cronies out a spy and her cover company. And that bastard still has the power to show his face and call Edward Snowden a traitor, a man who released information on this violation of our fourth amendment rights. Our President is continuing the policy that that man and his ilk have used to spy on American citizens and the republicans are pleased with him. Except for a couple, the Democrats are silent and in agreement.

Fuck that.

I'm glad he did it and I'm grateful for the discussion that it has started.

[MgtPA]

13. ^^This^^

[grntuscarora]

21. +1.

nt

[magellan]

26. Zactly. +1 n/t

[mike_c]

28. this....

+1

[bigwillq]

40. Tremendous post.

[forestpath]

61. +1000

[WillyT]

66. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[Waiting For Everyman]

11. Snowden's side or the NSA's? I'll definitely side with Snowden.

And I don't expect whistleblowers to be martyrs. That is simply lame.

[ohheckyeah]

15. Given what Drake and the two other former NSA employees went through,

Snowden would be an idiot to stay here. I don't regard him as a big hero or as a traitor....I think he is a man who did what he thought was right.

All of the focus on Snowden and his employer, character, motives, etc. are a distraction from the real issue. Is, or is not, the government spying on American citizens? I think they are and have been for years and it's well past time for it to stop.

I was outraged over the Patriot Act and wrote many letters to my representatives - little good that did. I signed petitions, I called representatives, I wrote blog posts, all to no avail. Snowden's actions have brought things into the light of day and for that I am grateful.

[Octafish]

18. Snowden, in a word.

[baldguy]

45. .

FTFY

[Octafish]

67. There is a difference.

Three NSA whistleblowers confirm Snowden's story: Drake, Binney, and Wiebe.

http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2428809

So, there is that.

[marions ghost]

20. I am on the side of the People

of the USA and the world who believe that the extent of US & British government surveillance as we now know it is absolutely, unequivocally, wrong.

I don't buy that Snowden operates under any other authority but his own. Edward Snowden was firmly on the side of we the people when he decided to do this IMO. Trash him all you want. Drag him around the village square. But I believe he acted from his own conscience and he did something that needed to be done. It was a brave act of civil disobedience. I like the Paul Revere analogy. We are at a crossroads for democracy.

[randome]

25. If all you see are 'sides', you aren't being objective.

The truth is often more complicated than one 'side' over another.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Hissyspit]

33. If all you are seeing is that Greenwald is a "little shit,"

then you aren't being objective.

[randome]

39. Gotta call 'em like I see 'em.

I mean the guy admitted he spoke with Snowden in February and now says just the opposite.

Still, my opinion of even him can change given new evidence.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Hissyspit]

46. Where did he do that?

I've seen no evidence of that.

[randome]

49. There is at least one thread about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023085699

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Hissyspit]

51. Yeah, I'm in that thread

trying to figure out why people are saying what you said it means when it doesn't necessarily mean what people are saying it means.

I've seen nothing that supports what you said.

[randome]

54. Maybe I misinterpreted it. I didn't really spend much time on the subject.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Skittles]

53. LOLOL

YOU GUYS ARE A HOOT!!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

59. 21st century version of the Three Stooges! n/t

[randome]

62. Hoot!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[orpupilofnature57]

29. I'm not on the Blindside, or those who blindside us .

[aquart]

35. You want POTUS to defend Snowden?

How would he applaud the breach of security and the violation of our laws, exactly?

[truebluegreen]

36. I'm on our side, against a rogue machine...

Snowden, whatever his traits or flaws, seems to be the same.

[baldguy]

37. The main personality demonizing Snowden is Greenwald.

[Hissyspit]

56. ?

[KittyWampus]

38. But I thought it wasn't about Snowden.

[ucrdem]

44. ^^ thread win

[Hissyspit]

60. Not really.

You might try reading the blog post in full.

[Hissyspit]

58. It's not.

It's about this: "More unnerving is the way in which various members of the media have failed to challenge the official line."

[AtomicKitten]

41. I'm not on anybody's side.

I'm just watching this carwreck unfold.

[Catherina]

48. I hope you have a comfortable seat.

I don't think this is going to be over soon, or be pretty.

[Smarmie Doofus]

42. How idiotic: "Narcissistic"? Like MLK? "We're not going to let any *injunction* turn us around."

>>that Edward Snowden is a traitor who made a narcissistic decision that he personally had a right to decide what public information should be in the public domain? >>>>>

Rosa Parks? Dan Ellsberg? Mario Savio? The lunch counter sitters-in should have written letters to Woolworth corporate, I guess.

"Narcissistic"?

>>>DRAKE: That’s a government meme, a government cover—that’s a government story. The government is desperate to not deal with the actual exposures, the content of the disclosures. Because they do reveal a vast, systemic, institutionalized, industrial-scale Leviathan surveillance state that has clearly gone far beyond the original mandate to deal with terrorism—far beyond.>>>

That's:

>>>the government is desperate to not deal with the actual exposures, the content of the disclosures. >>>>



"Desperate."


Yeah. I noticed. And it's not just the government.

[MotherPetrie]

57. Team Snowden - same team I'd be on if this were 2008 and Bush were still in the WH

[grasswire]

63. I am on the side of EVIDENCE

And so far, the evidence that U.S. intelligence empire is out of our control is greater than any EVIDENCE that Snowden is damaging our interests.

[one_voice]

64. I thought this wasn't about Snowden.

[PufPuf23]

65. Snowden is less than half my age. Regardless of specifics, Snowden has raised awareness

of issues central to liberty, privacy, and government transparency.

I am for Snowden. I am for Bradley Manning too. Jessica Lynch has class for her age and response to how she was used by the MIC.

Connected people who flee to Dubai such as Halliburton and Xe (Blackwater) are the bottom feeders.

I can't believe that Snowden, Manning, nor Lynch had full understanding of their heroism and impact.

The imbedded with MIC blood cultists, war criminals, and war profiteers (Halliburton, Blackwater, and their kind) knew exactly wehat they were doing and did it for $$$.

[orpupilofnature57]

68. +1000 !!!!