General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEUGENE ROBINSON: America Should Thank Snowden For Revealing NSA Snooping
By
Posted 06:28 PM ET
Edward Snowden's renegade decision to reveal the jaw-dropping scope of the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance is being vindicated even as Snowden himself is being vilified.
Intelligence officials in the Obama administration and their allies on Capitol Hill paint the fugitive analyst as nothing but a traitor who wants to harm the United States. Many of those same officials grudgingly acknowledge, however, that public debate about the NSA's domestic snooping is now unavoidable.
This would be impossible if Snowden or someone like him hadn't spilled the beans. We wouldn't know that the NSA is keeping a database of all our phone calls. We wouldn't know that the government gets the authority to keep track of our private communications even if we are not suspected of terrorist activity or associations from secret judicial orders issued by a secret court based on secret interpretations of the law.
Snowden, of course, is hardly receiving the thanks of a grateful nation. He has spent the last five weeks trapped in the transit zone of Sheremetyevo Airport outside Moscow. Russian officials, who won't send him home for prosecution, wish he would move along.
MORE...
http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/20130729/OPINION03/130729352/eugene-robinson-we-should-thank-edward-snowden
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)Edward Snowden is a modern day Paul Revere with a thumb drive full of news that Tyranny is coming!
Edward Snowden's Dad Calls Him 'Modern Day Paul Revere'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/edward-snowdens-dad-calls-modern-day-paul-revere/story?id=19554337
Hmmm... who knew who influential a DU meme could be
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Isnt that rich? If the spooks had their way, there would be no continuing public interest in the program. We wouldnt know it exists.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)*** Above question was rhetorical. He knows too much.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)willing to drag a few more from under their slimey rock into the daylight.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Sometime in the near future we will learn about a 'retroactive' amendment, passed quietly by Congress, legalizing 'lying to Congress for National Security reasons'.
After that happens, if you mention that 'Clapper lied to Congress', someone will come along with a link to inform you that 'what he did was legal' and to 'see Amend. #3 for details'.
Just as they made Bush's illegal spying, legal. I'm sure you have been accosted with a link, if you have called the current policies 'illegal', to Amendment #1 in this series of 'Save the Criminals from Prosecution' Amendments pointing out that it is LEGAL, unlike Bush, because, when he did, it was ILLEGAL.
We have become a banana republic when it comes to the law being applied to the wealthy and powerful and those who work for their interests.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Thus, the Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. ~George Orwell, 1984
- Welcome to 1984.....
East Coast Pirate
(775 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Lots of claims. Lots of insinuations. But no evidence.
We need more transparency and less secrecy but to take S&G's word for anything without looking at the evidence smacks of lazy thinking, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
AllyCat
(16,189 posts)And a Constitution that says that is not okay, but they did it anyway, then get their helpers on the inter tubes to say "what law did they break?"
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And can be re-constituted into real conversations any time any authority wants it. (Yes yes, the FISA court could rule in favor of a defendant, but so far there has not been one such ruling. Any requests are approved.)
Now maybe this doesn't mean much to you. But for those of us who are activists, it is scarey. Anyone protesting Monsanto or Keystone Pipeline is not happy with this.
The chances for bribery, for insider business information, etc is huge.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)No matter how many people answer the question with examples, he pretends like nothing new has been revealed and the next day asserts the same. Rinse, Repeat.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Obviously operating on strict instructions.
randome
(34,845 posts)You can 'convert' me if that's what you want to do. But I need to see evidence first.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Many people over the past several weeks have listed all the information for you. Go look back at your posts. You will easily find it.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)[h2][font color=red]
And here I thought I was the only one on DU whom you entrusted to regurgitate hundreds of articles that would answer your questions (if you cared to have them answered.)
I AM SHATTERED, I TELL YA, SHATTERED!
[/h2][/font color=red]
randome
(34,845 posts)They have made claims of nefarious activities but produced no evidence to support it.
Maybe the NSA is 'watching our thoughts form as we type'. But I need evidence before I let the outrage bull off its leash.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)To me, that's part of what sets us apart from the Conservatives -critical thinking should always over-ride emotional fears.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)and you obviously are OK with that, then you likely are a Conservative. We have become the same demon we supposedly stood against during the cold war. What I find difficult to believe is that you are on-board with that.
randome
(34,845 posts)The purpose of NSA is to monitor foreign communications. If the NSA is spying on us all, I want to see evidence of that. But so far, nothing that S&G have stolen and printed points to that happening.
The metadata records are only viewed when one communicant is from another country. It sounds pretty straight-forward to me and it makes sense that an investigation would take place when a suspected terrorist in another country is calling someone inside this country.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)You have been offered the needed info - there have been entire topics on what this means.
You don't think that the same people who snooped to listen in on service people having intimate conversations with their spouses would be above monitoring a company's email if they could put that information to advantage?
randome
(34,845 posts)Then veer off into what spouses may be talking about.
Again, one more time? Where is the evidence that S&G provided that points to illegality or abuse? It's a simple question that no one in this thread can apparently answer. Possibly they don't like the answer they would be forced to give: the answer is 'None'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Assemble such evidence.
But if you are not in GS, then please stop making me your mother!
I am not on DU for the express purpose of regurgitating five weeks of news reports, that you as an adult can read if you wish to. I hang out on DU for solidarity with other radicals.
There is quite a bit of wisdom in mojorabbit's reply number 94, as far as wasting time on certain people.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Consider for a moment how much power all this communication data gives to our corporate-owned government. Think about it.
Let's say that some multinational corporations want to build a massive factory pig farm in your community, but there are serious concerns about the farms affect on the local environment. You decide to create an movement against the pig farm and become a leader in the protest. Problem is that the pig farm means a lot of payola for certain Influential wealthy groups and government officials. All they have to do is pull up data on all your phone calls, email, texts, Internet searches, etc etc to get any dirt on you they want. Character assassination, bribery, etc follow forcing you to abandon your Constitutional right of protest. Pig farm gets built and the corporatists have won again.
Now imagine this happening to thousands of other well intentioned activists...
You see where I'm going with this.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Don't ya know?
randome
(34,845 posts)Carl Bernstein said, and I agree, that from what we know the personal data at NSA is well protected.
In fact, S&G's inability to get at personal data supports that idea.
Every single LE agency in the world has the capacity to engage in illegal or abusive activity. But until we see evidence they are, I don't intend to get outraged over something that isn't happening.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Add in the fact that 17 states here in the USA have binding contracts with privatized prison contractors that they will keep the jail cells 98% occupied, and you can see what a scarey era we average Americans are entering.
A privatized prison operator gets $ 40,000 per year per prisoner. Since they don't even bother to provide clean water to the inmates, and it is PRISON PROFIT, PRISON PROFIT, PRISON PROFIT and then of course, in this example you cite, PIG FARM PROFIT, as well
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)seemingly incapable of retaining information that has been none stop
for over a month now followed by your repetitive hammering of the same
questions, over, and over and over. Much like what I imagine it was
like for Alice to have tea with the Mad Hatter. eom
randome
(34,845 posts)They have made vague claims and insinuations. I think we all agree that we want more transparency and less secrecy where the NSA is involved. But to run around as some do with their hair on fire and with very clear expressions of disdain for other DUers does not represent a rational, objective viewpoint.
I maintain that one of the key factors that separate Progressives from Conservatives is our ability to evaluate based on evidence, not emotions.
If I am wrong in that, then I see little difference between the two groups. And I want very much to see the difference.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)You're omnipresence should have picked up on it. I do not put people
on ignore because I like to keep abreast of the tenor of talk. Just rest
assured that everytime you hit the "Post My Reply" button the hissing
you hear is from me. eom
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)"what law did they break?"
"what law did they break?"
"what law did they break?"
"what law did they break?"
RL
Response to randome (Reply #65)
Skittles This message was self-deleted by its author.
delrem
(9,688 posts)you're a sock.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's a simple question. The 'outragers' don't appear to have an answer other than to point to the FISA court that reined in the NSA in one instance.
And which still has nothing to do with S&G.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
Logical
(22,457 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)and laugh at the hilarious comments.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Puglover
(16,380 posts)Almost as clever as their other favorite.
"You Better Believe It"
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)...tainted as it is by propaganda.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Thanks to his bravery, I have shuffled a lot of trolls off into the Ignore Lists, where they may sit and jabber at each other.
Anyone who cannot recognize Snowden's enduring contribution to the US and the world is not worthy of one moment of my attention. It's the equivalent of bad-mouthing the Kennedys or MLK, Jr and the other civil rights martyrs. Or our Founding Fathers and Mothers.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)So I take it that anyone who disagrees with you and the rest of the Snowden gang must not be "true democrats"? Is that kind of like the christian zealots, cults, etc. that say that if you don't believe them you are "not a true christian"?
I have said many times that if there is proof of abuse in the NSA, then let them be investigated and face the music. I also have said many times that Snowden and Greenwald are not heroes. Snowden seems to have done this for political reasons, being a follower of Ron Paul and Rand, seems to point to that. The things he said about SS, kicking whistle blowers in the nuts, etc. pretty much show me this man is a libertarian, just like Greenwald is a libertarian. The fact Greenwald is going to write a book to make money off of this shows me he also had an agenda, and it wasn't patriotism.
I also think that the right wing trolls, and the Paulbot trolls, have done a great job of keeping this stirred up, whether they are paid or doing it for free. I also think there are trolls that on both sides of the issue doing their job of causing divisions here at DU.
I have never said that anyone who doesn't think like I do is "not a true democrat". I think that is just plain insane and makes the trolls and the right wing morons that come here to watch DU fighting each other happy as hell.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are not Democrats. THey are conservatives and we need them to go back to the Republican Party where they fucking belong.
Democrats support whistle-blowers and REpublicans support Gen Clapper, Gen Alexander, Herr Mueller and Mr. Torture Comey.
You are either with the 99% or the 1%. Clapper is the 1%.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)figuratively
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and creepy ass attempts to smear by nonexistent associations are not traits of people who respect others, and lack of respect for others in politics indicates Conservatism in deeply engrained. Just look at your post, chock full of adjectives, insinuations, inferences and general sleaze. The lexicon and style serve to define.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)[font size=3]"The lexicon and style serve to define."[/font]
Its ALL there,
and it ain't pretty.
I'm sure you have noticed that those that think spying on everyone, all the time is both somehow legal and a fun, harmless thing for our government to do, keep trying to bring the root problem back to Snowden, down playing the total control the holders of the data bases have over any and everyone they have hoovered communications from.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)fantom what the spying is leading to in the future.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I coud say that "you folks" can't fantom the effects of putting libertarian and Ron Paul teachings above everything else. You can be upset with the spying, you can be upset with anything you want, but do you really think allowing the teachings of people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul to be spewed here on a daily basis is really a good idea? That's my problem. I don't know about you but the though of a president Rand Paul simply makes me sick as hell, and the though of more people like Rand Paul getting elected to any office in this country makes me feel the same way.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)I decided to repeat that 5 times so that you would realize that everyone with 1/2 of a brain cell on DU knows your tactics and will not confuse common sense with your failure to understand not everyone is as stupid as you think.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Who knew?
I mean besides anyone with any sense whatsoever.
What the short sighted among us fail to realize is that by insisting anyone that supports civil liberties is libertarian scum, they're going to hand defense of civil liberties entirely to the libertarians. The defenders of this shit are working toward president Ron Paul, not the people attacking it.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)This isnt about Obama, its about keeping this from the other side.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)So your really think they are "spying" on you and everyone else, that they are listening in on all your calls, and reading all your e-mail?
As I said I think there needs to be and investigation, but what I have a problem with is the hero worship here on DU where Snowden and Greenwald, neither one a democrat, liberal or a progressive, are held in such high esteem. I also have a problem with the fact they are "believed" over anyone else no matter what facts are brought forward. I remember when Paulbots were a bad thing here, when libertarian views were not given hundreds of recs, but banned from the site. It's just crazy around here these days, crazy as hell!
RC
(25,592 posts)That is totally immaterial. It is doubtful either are DU'ers either, so why would it matter?
What does matter is what they did. They brought to everyone attention, i.e., the world, what our government is doing on a very large scale, in secret. Collecting our meta data, Internet, E-mails, and phone calls and storing them in a huge data base for later combing through, looking for who know what.
Snowden and Greenwald are believed over everyone else because what they say checks out. Unlike our own government, they are telling the truth. Remember the least untruthful statement in front the Senate Intelligence Committee, on March 12, 2013?
In an interview with NBCs Andrea Mitchell, he said that I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner, by saying no, though he also called his answer too cute by half. He indicated that his response to Wyden turned on a definition of collect: There are honest differences on the semantics of what -- when someone says collection to me, that has a specific meaning, which may have a different meaning to him.
One wonders why Clapper or his staff did not seek a clarification, given the apparent heads up by Wyden. Clapper apparently thinks the NSA collects only on specific targets what he called, in the interview with NBC, taking the book off the shelf and opening it up and reading it. But that is a rather slippery answer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/james-clappers-least-untruthful-statement-to-the-senate/2013/06/11/e50677a8-d2d8-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_blog.html
All the NSA needs to do is in type in a name, IP address, phone number and all the information they have hoovered up concerning the search terms comes up on the screen. A few more key clicks and they can listen to the phone calls, or read the E-mails. That is what Snowden exposed.
If Snowden had little to nothing, then why does our government want him so bad? They want him so bad precisely because he has some very damning and embarrassing information, taken from the inside. Our government wants him so they can make an example of him, as they did Manning.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)If I were Skinner, I'd throw all the shit-smearing McCarthyist un-Americans off this board. I don't know why Skinner tolerates them.
Whatever happened to the rule "Don't be a right winger"?
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)It's very useful that way, isn't it? This and the TPP free trade deal. I found that using the two together makes a nearly perfect dividing line, or handy scorecard to tell who's who.
I don't put them on ignore though (just my way of doing it), I like to keep an eye on what they're doing and they don't get under my skin (except for the annoyance of trashing up a thread to the point that it's nearly unreadable).
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Why only now did you realize he's Uncle Ruckus in disguise!
(WARNING: Uncle Ruckus uses quite a bit of racist foul language in this video.)
Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I don't have to agree with Eugene Robinson.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-snowden-performed-a-valuable-service/2013/07/29/b232965a-f866-11e2-8e84-c56731a202fb_story.html
Snowden has no crediblity, and deserves no thanks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023288332
burnodo
(2,017 posts)You know you want to do it! You know you want to post sub-OP! C'mon. You can do it!
"c'mon Pro!"
...really creeps me out. I just responded to you here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023369460#post2
burnodo
(2,017 posts)You'll be starting a NEW thread countering this thread without actually naming Robinson. Please proceed.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)And I was just going to post to snappyturtle that they'd gone and done it...since they responded to my response of you you'd HAVE to post a response!
And here it is
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Estimate will do.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)N t
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)one encounters your extremely repetitive, noxious and persistent talking-points material every fifteen seconds while browsing this site.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There's little choice about that when...one encounters your extremely repetitive, noxious and persistent talking-points material every fifteen seconds while browsing this site."
It's my fault that anyone is obsessed with me? Are my threads and comments that compelling that they can't be ignored?
What prevent you from not clicking on the link?
If you don't want to encounter my "extremely repetitive, noxious and persistent talking-points material every fifteen seconds while browsing this site" put me on ignore.
Frankly, I think continuing to obsess and talking about how much you dislike my comments is weird. No one is forcing you to engage in any of my threads.
No one.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Long as we're both here, I'm not going to be missing what you do.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)One of your many endearing qualities.
Logical
(22,457 posts)I am obsessed with calling out your blatant, rampant bias.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)" You never agree with anyone who does not think Snowden is Satan. Obsession, yes....I am obsessed with calling out your blatant, rampant bias."
...expect me to suddenly support Snowden because some said something? "Satan"? WTF?
Yes, serious obsession and denial:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592785#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040#post8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022831006#post57
Logical
(22,457 posts)back to your OWN posts.
And all the discussion about the NSA and privacy was because of SNOWDEN, nothing else. And your perfect Obama is now willing to have a discussion about security and privacy when he ignored it before. WHY? Even you know the answer.
The fact that you will not admit Snowden exposed stuff that needed discussed is a farce.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Response to ProSense (Reply #68)
Post removed
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...er, yeah. There it is.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)off to ignore it went
I was just scrolling thru looking for a post from Prosense as well since she's so sure that the Obama government would NEVER do this, because it's just, well, it's not nice and anyone who dares say otherwise is certainly not a Democrat.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Maybe Snowden slept from 2005 to 2013.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)This is from a bio on Judge Kollar-Kotelly on wikipedia: One of her 'notable' cases:
Maybe Snowden had had enough by 2013....just sayin'
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I was speaking to the fact George Bush gave the information in 2005 and if my calculations serves me correctly this was before GG came out with his column and Snowden claimed he was the one in 2013, as you say just saying, please proceed Snappy.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)was doing in 2005. Actually, in re-reading your post I find it incoherent.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Starting with post #9 I posted
"9. Credit should be given where it is due, try George Bush talking about this in 2005.
Maybe Snowden slept from 2005 to 2013."
You posted #45
"
Speaking of sleeping....where where you in 2004?
This is from a bio on Judge Kollar-Kotelly on wikipedia: One of her 'notable' cases:
On July 14, 2004, barely two months after President Bush was forced to end NSA domestic internet metadata collection by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Kollar-Kotelly issued a FISA court order allowing the NSA to resume unconstitutional domestic internet metadata collection. "
I posted #84
"84. Did Snowden go a press conference in 2005 and say the records were being examined?
I was speaking to the fact George Bush gave the information in 2005 and if my calculations serves me correctly this was before GG came out with his column and Snowden claimed he was the one in 2013, as you say just saying, please proceed Snappy. "
You posted #87
"
87. Gave what information in 2005? I have no idea what Snowden
was doing in 2005. Actually, in re-reading your post I find it incoherent."
I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand George Bush spoke of collecting phone call data in a press conference in the year of 2005 and to have some apparently think the first release of this type of information occurred in 2013. So many wants to give credit to Snowden for revealing this information, I said the credit should go to Bush since he gave this information well before Snowden did.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts).
.
.
..
.
...
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and the Nobel Committee will fund his exile...with a Peace Prize. Perhaps shared with Manning?
We are going to need a whole new category of awards for such brave souls.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The award exists, but can't find my notes about the exact title of the award.
It is highly coveted, and it means not only that the reporter was awesome, but before the nominated story and article can receive the award, it is carefully vetted. that way, the reporter not only gets a great award, but they can tell the numerous Establishment detractors, "Every word of my article has been independently vetted, and was found to be true."
I found this out when listening to indie reporter Peter Byrne and his account of writing about Diane Feinstein's corrupt policies, an article he wrote back in 2006.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)"And another one goes,
And another one goes,
Yes another one goes under the bus!"
K&R.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)You may be accused of adoration!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Like this guy used to:
burnodo
(2,017 posts)He meant GOVERNMENT whistleblowers...you know, those exposing GOVERNMENT fraud, waste, and abuse. Not those exposing the government's OWN waste, fraud and abuse. The distinction without a difference is very important in your assessment of Obama's n-th dimensional maneuvering
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...but he was thinking of people who steal [font color=gray]paperclips[/font], [font color=orange]post-it notes[/font] and [font color=red]red staplers[/font].
20score
(4,769 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It is ridiculous that this is being made such a deal of.
think
(11,641 posts)or hide crimes behind classified documents....
Never ever ever! They promise!
think
(11,641 posts)instead of whistle blowing.
Then no one would care what the fuck he did and let him just "disappear"......
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Its always the minions of the federal government who are thrown under the bus by officials who consistently violate international law and sometimes domestic law and who are all immune from prosecution. Their lives are fine. Theyre making millions of dollars sitting on corporate boards.
The former CIA operative, she resigned from the agency in 2009, says that the rendition program was approved of at the highest levels but that those officialsincluding President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, and CIA Director George Tenetwill never be held accountable.
I find this coverup so egregious," she said when asked about her decision to speak out now. "Thats why I find it really important to talk about this. Look at the lives ruined, including that of Abu Omar. And I was caught in the crossfire of anger directed at U.S. policy. ~Former CIA operative Sabrina De Sousa
think
(11,641 posts)the torture and kidnapping that she would be discussing:
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Washington Bureau
~Snip~
My life has been hell, De Sousa said, explaining that her Italian conviction left her career in ruins, crippled her ability to find a good paying private-sector job and left her liable to arrest abroad. Her resignation, which she submitted after the CIA barred her from visiting her ailing, elderly mother in Goa for Christmas, and then refused to fly her mother to the United States, left her without a pension.
In addition to losing your pension, youre blacklisted in Washington, De Sousa said. Anyone who has anything to do with the agency will never hire you. I lost my clearances.
Asked why shed agreed to be interviewed, De Sousa replied, I find this coverup so egregious. Thats why I find it really important to talk about this. Look at the lives ruined, including that of Abu Omar. And I was caught in the crossfire of anger directed at U.S. policy.
Now, she noted, she also could face prosecution in the United States for revealing what she has. Youve seen whats happened lately to anyone who has tried to disclose anything, she said.
But her treatment, she said, provides a warning to U.S. employees serving around the world. If they get prosecuted while doing their jobs, she said, You have no protection whatsoever. Zero.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/27/197823/us-allowed-italian-kidnap-prosecution.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.Ufclfm2f7ax#storylink=cpy
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)attacked and marginalized as being not recent and irrelevant?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023353283
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...due to my previous encounters with what now passes for democratically-thinking members of the DU, I only saw a smattering of the 59 replies since all the other responders are now safely gagged in my I-Bin along with all the other white noise makers.
But I know what you mean.
- Just keep hacking away and telling the TRUTH. They'll wake up eventually......
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)We surely are having the conversation we need.
Look at the post count, and it's clear that we NEED to take a hard look, which would be impossible, were it not for the whistle blowers
Response to Purveyor (Original post)
Post removed
ecstatic
(32,710 posts)Is he the ultimate authority now? Not trying to be sarcastic... Just curious.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Or just pretending?
polynomial
(750 posts)From my view there are some people who do not sense that this NSA Meta data collection is epoch making. What puzzles me is to know that a very connected one percent type business like Booz Allen and Hamilton can secretly collect a huge meta data base likely about millions of regular citizens.
The behavior pattern of America can be built into a distribution form with incredible accuracy for decision making. Not only for Homeland security but also for marketing, banking, personal habits, you name it just about anything can be patterned from just connected Meta data information.
The calculus is potentially very powerful political characterization of local areas would too tempt to pass up. Talk about the marketing end, it cannot be dismissed that our very own Mainstream media likely has an inside connection to all this Meta data stuff.
So here we have the basic definition of too big to fail. Certainly when wiretaps are secret, plus the whole job done under cover would be so compelling for all sorts of profiteering minds scramble to invest in bribery, blackmail, and fraud. Its the best news making material your tax money can buy.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)spicegal
(758 posts)high tech society. If you want privacy, cut off every device that allows any type of personal surveillance, i.e., any social media, phone, computer, etc. I just listened to an interview with a guy on NPR who tried to do that, while still having the tools to do his job. He cut out a lot, but couldn't make it to 100%. And it wasn't the government "spying" on him.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Snowden still broke the law. There are legal avenues for whistleblowers... Snowden chose not to take them and is now paying the price.
Civilization2
(649 posts)then at all though.
It be hard to control secret group in secret organisations, that do secret spying, under secret authorization that makes it legal.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)
I finally put that bot on ignore - and this thread is much more readable.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...a specified time period during which we are allowed to become concerned and discuss such things? If we don't have the discussion within the specified time period, then too bad but it's too late to either discuss it or do something about it?
Even IF you were correct about the revelations not being new, it is entirely, 100% irrelevant.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Hell, if you want to talk about American's being spied on you need to go back to J. Edgar Hoover (maybe even earlier). Does that make it right to spy on American's? No, but this isn't a new development. Our government has been spying on us for a very long time.
So, I prefer not to give "props" to some guy who, depending on what you read, may have had ulterior motives in doing what he's done. I also have a problem with Snowden being held up as a whistleblower or some kind of hero when we haven't a clue what information he may or may not have given to China and Russia. Does he get a pass if he shared information that puts undercover operatives in harms way? Does he get a pass if he told them information they shouldn't have or are you one of those people who think spying on foreign countries is bad too?
The point of my original comment is that Frontline, in 2007, told us the same information that Snowden did this year, without the ambiguity of possibly passing on other secrets to foreign nations.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...it really doesn't matter when these things were first revealed.
I don't have a problem with people believing Snowden was wrong to do what he did. People do have different viewpoints on the matter. What chaps my hide, though, is the assertion that we knew about it before so why are we talking about it now?
We are talking about it now because Snowden and Greenwald managed to bring the issue to the forefront. Now it is true, the timing is inconvenient for the present Administration; and it is true, Obama's hands may be somewhat tied on this issue, in that he is both a Democratic President and the first black President. It would be very, very hard for him to try and dismantle a lot of the security apparatus that has been constructed over the years. I get that.
But the bottom line for me is, it's Constitutional, or it's not. I fall into the camp that says it's not, that there has been a severe overreach by the NSA. Getting metadata of all calls, domestic and foreign, is not acceptable to me. So whatever Snowden's motivations are, or Greenwald's motivations are, and whatever hay the right can make and whatever damage this might do to Obama's presidency, are side issues. But again: when it comes to the right making hay, and damage to Obama's presidency, yes I wish it were not so. But that is not reason enough to sweep this under the rug yet again.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)but it seems to me people weren't paying attention in 2007 when this was first spoken about. That's my only contention with this. Snowden didn't "break" this story and neither did Greenwald. I think both are getting too much credit for something akin to a game of "telephone." That's the only point I was making with my original comment. It makes me wonder if more people were paying attention in 2007, we would be this far along in the metadata collection or would we have been just as collectively outraged then?
xchrom
(108,903 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)DirtyDawg
(802 posts)...that the issue is whether or not our Government is actually listening to conversations - even capturing them for future review - or just maintaining the records of calls/emails/etc. to like them to others under investigation. I don't see a problem with the latter, especially, after all the folks on Law & Order have been 'checking the LUDs', and if Lennie Briscoe could do it then what could be wrong with it? And furthermore, all the damned storage space to capture and keep everything seems an absolute impossibly idiotic exercise...and if we still have a problem with the Guv doing I then change the 'ownership' of the data to the corporations that capture it in the first place...which I expect they already do and just charge them a fee to manage it...see?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...that they track the metadata for every call or email, and rely on the telecomms to keep the actual calls for a certain period of time. Then if they need to expand out to listen to the call or read the email, they can track back to the telecomm's records to pull up the content.
So the government does not have to store the entire content itself.
That is how I think it could easily be done.
D23MIURG23
(2,850 posts)That makes him practically the same thing as Alex Jones!!!
Skittles
(153,169 posts)yes INDEED
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Every single damned one of you who has been reading DU has seen MORE information than was "revealed" by Snowden in the years 2005-2009.
I have yet to see a single disclosure from Snowden that was not previously reported right the hell here.
There is a very, very dangerous deception afoot, here. The Snowden disclosures are being repeatedly bashed over the heads of the American public to make them forget that all of Snowden's disclosures were previously reported, more or less as it happened, while the Bush Administration feloniously expanded domestic spying and lied about it.
There is a reason for that, and I'm pretty sure it has to do with the fact that the Bush Administration used NSA to read all of John Kerry's plans in the 2004 election.
The only way you can allow yourselves to believe that Snowden's revelations are new and important is if you also allow yourselves to believe that the Bush Administration was telling the truth when they lied their asses off to all of us, every day, for years, and destroyed any journalist who dared to contradict them.
Deb
(3,742 posts)I feel like logging in just to respond with "DUPE" to those threads.
DU, where the old becomes new once again.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Is there a statute of limitations, after which we are no longer allowed to question something? So if the government has been spying on us for the last 10 years, and we all sorta kinda knew it, but then someone comes along and focuses our attention on the issue -- you seem to be saying too bad, too late, we already knew and we did not freak about it so there's just nothing we can do now but accept it.
I will never subscribe to that viewpoint. Therefore, whether or not we "already knew" everything that Snowden has revealed, it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)This story is an elaborate exercise in perception management, arranged by the very people who perpetrated these crimes.
The purpose of it is to shift the onus of blame upon this Presidency and what is happening now, now that it has been painstakingly made legal--after the fact.that the Bush Administration forged and pursued these same policies in a completely illegal fashion.
Legal now. Not legal then. If you want to talk about now, then god damn it, we had better be talking about how to prosecute the people who did it then.
And yet we are not talking about that, are we?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)If your concern is our civil rights, and whether massive domestic surveillance by the NSA is acceptable, then whether it was known about 1 year ago or 10 years ago or 20 years ago is 100% irrelevant.
If your concern is defending the current President no matter what, then yes, I can see how the timing would be a concern. That does not, however, even begin to prove there is any intent to undermine this President.
Furthermore, EVEN IF there were players whose intent was to undermine this President -- and yes, there may be such players -- that still is not relevant to the issue of massive domestic surveillance.
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and that is true regardless of who is in office.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)Would you dismantle it by forgiving the Bush Administration for what they have done? Because that is what we are doing by pretending we all just found out about this.
The way to dismantle it is to fucking destroy the people who created this policy, illegally, in secret, for unknown and unstated purposes, and then begin dismantling the current legal framework which was hastily thrown up, using the prosecutions as political and legal ballast.
But so long as we don't talk about prosecuting those who clearly violated the law, all the talk about our imaginary civil rights today is bullshit.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...by forgiving the Bush Administration for what they have done?"
and then claim "that is what we are doing by pretending we all just found out about this."
First: I'm not the one "forgiving the Bush Administration". Those of us who object to the massive surveillance state are not the ones who are "forgiving the Bush Administration". You want to know who really did forgive the Bush Administration? That would be Obama and his administration, when they refused to do any prosecutions of the previous administration for any reason whatever. "Looking forward", I think was the reason we were given. So your line of argument there, just doesn't fly.
Second: No one is "pretending we all just found out about this." We have now had our suspicions verified and our attention focused on this issue. And there was no guarantee that would happen; other whistle blowers have come before Edward Snowden, but none of them was able to be effective in creating a debate on this issue. Also, even if your accusation here were true, it is irrelevant to the issue of the massive surveillance state.
Now I agree wholeheartedly we should dismantle the current legal framework, and I'm all for destroying the people who created this abomination (legally destroying them, that is). So sure, let's talk about prosecuting these people. But if our civil rights are imaginary, as you say, then what grounds would we have to do so? In fact, our civil rights will become imaginary in a hurry if we cease to defend them.
You seem to be a bit confused.
randome
(34,845 posts)Granted, maybe it exists. But the documents S&G stole and printed show no evidence of illegality or abuse.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...legality vs. illegality is not the issue. The telecom companies were granted retroactive immunity from prosecution, with the new law making their previously illegal behavior legal.
Re: "no evidence ... of abuse". Really? We already know that spooks listened in on private conversations of our troops with their significant others:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-inside-account-us-eavesdropping-americans/story?id=5987804
Exclusive: Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans
So yeah, I am concerned.
randome
(34,845 posts)Among many. Has nothing to do with the documents S&G stole.
Hubert Flottz
(37,726 posts)IMHO, Edward Snowden did the best he knew how, to defend our American Democracy. It's a god damned shame our "Leaders" don't defend him for being the type of patriot, that they all took an oath to be. The kind of patriot that defends the Constitution of the USA the best way he can. What really pisses me off, is that Obama doesn't bring this man to the White House and give him a medal. Instead Obama is willing to hunt this man down, for telling us the truth, about what our secret government is doing to us behind our backs, with our tax dollars.
This country has gone to the PIGS!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)of the bored chair occupants.