The Snowden Revelation That Might Start a War

[sheshe2]

Bob Cesca on January 27, 2014

Snip/


Not widely reported in the United States, a November article by The Guardian‘s Ewen MacAskill revealed that in 2009 Australia’s NSA counterpart, the Defense Signals Directorate (DSD), eavesdropped on the cellphone of Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as well as his wife Ani.

The timing of the article couldn’t have been worse. Australia and Indonesia have been struggling to curtail what’s known as “people smuggling,” a refugee crisis in which people from the Middle East and South Asia have been using Indonesia as a launching-off point for harrowing journeys across the Banda and Timor Seas to seek asylum in Australia.

Snip/

To be clear, Australia/Indonesia tensions didn’t begin with Snowden, but that makes the publishing of this Snowden revelation even more irresponsible and ill-conceived. Consequently, relations have heated up and worsened as a direct result of it. Had it not been for this particular Snowden revelation, it’s very likely that Indonesia would’ve continued to assist Australia in patrolling for refugees, and a shooting war at sea wouldn’t be “imminent.” Indeed, The Guardian‘s article was the inciting incident leading to the current military dilemma.

This might be the clearest example of the recklessness of the Snowden leaks — how the former NSA systems administrator indiscriminately dumped thousands if not more than a million documents to a growing roster of journalists with nothing more than a gentleman’s agreement about making sure the articles were in the public interest. In that regard, it’s unclear how this news fits the ongoing narrative of a rogue, unconstitutional American/British surveillance state.

If the goal of Snowden and his team of reporters has shifted to something broader than alleged NSA and GCHQ trespasses, and will now include the exposing of any and all nations who spy on other nations irrespective of how those revelations might spark military tensions and possible war, we’re looking at a very different and very dangerous new chapter in the Snowden saga.

snip/

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/01/the-snowden-revelation-that-might-start-a-war/

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. If the revelation of spying is apt to start a war

...do you blame the revelation itself, or the fact that there was something to be revealed?

[Aerows]

2. My question, exactly n/t

[sheshe2]

16. Are you okay with the fact that he is dumping

all these documents willy nilly? Why did he not bring them to a member of congress that he trusted?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. I put a question out there. You replied with a different question.

[okaawhatever]

27. I'll answer it. It is highly probable that Indonesia knew the Aussies would try, and likely, succeed

in bugging their communications. Making it publicly known forces Indonesia to address publicly as well. Diplomatically, I don't think a country can just say, oh, it's okay no worries. We've been trying to hack your communications for some time now, too. You've got to tell me where you find your hackers. The revelations force their hand at a highly inopportune time. I can tell you could not care the least about the refugees who might be harmed by not having Indonesia and Australia working together to help their journey.
Does it occur to you who benefits from all this? China is the country rattling sabres in the area. They want nothing more than for all their opposition to be fighting one another. There is zero gain from this and potential harm to both the refugees and Indonesian/Australian relations.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. Well, you started to answer, but you got sidetracked and blamed me for refugees' woes

Who is culpable? Those who let us know about the spying, or those who did the spying?

[Aerows]

31. That's the question I'd love to have answered in this thread

If you are angry about the spying, obviously, you are Edward Snowden or a warmonger. Or you despise Obama and the ground he walks on. Or a Libertarian, or some other type of horrific human being that relishes misery and suffering because you are concerned about the NSA and it's partners in the five eyes over-stepping their bounds.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. No one seems to want to answer it.

By the way, it's terrible what you're doing to those refugees. Dolphins too.

[okaawhatever]

53. No, I did answer. It's the revelation itself. I don't buy the meme that the issue was the spying

itself. In fact, I don't believe it would have been a revelation to Indonesia at all. It's generally accepted practice that countries spy on one another, yes even their allies. Indonesia has been caught spying on Australia. The "revelation" wasn't a revelation. It was an attempt to cause a diplomatic row. You should ask yourself, who would benefit from causing a rift in the Indonesia/Australian relationship? Maybe that will tell you why the revelation was made.

From the Diplomat:

Indonesia is certainly not immune from criticism of foreign espionage. According to Dr. Hewson, espionage is always the elephant in the diplomatic room. “Everybody does it to some degree, and nobody wants to talk about it, especially if it becomes a matter of public allegations and discussion,” he said. “However, Indonesia doesn’t come to this issue with clean hands either, having admitted previously to having “spied” on Australia during the East Timor crisis.”

In 2004, Indonesia’s retiring Intelligence Chief Abdullah Mahmud Hendropriyono admitted on Australian television that Jakarta had bugged the Australian embassy in Jakarta and tapped the phones of Australian politicians. Since last week’s revelations, Yudhoyono has also moved to create the Central Intelligence Committee, to be administered by the State Intelligence Agency, which will open new branch offices and make foreign spies a priority target.

But it would be remiss to blame deteriorating relations exclusively on the espionage allegations, media commentary, or public protest. This fallout is instead the culmination of a year of diplomatic frustrations between Canberra and Jakarta, with both nations posturing for respective national elections and politicians often defaulting to megaphone diplomacy rather than nuanced discussion.
http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/indonesia-and-australia-deteriorating-diplomacy/1/

[sabrina 1]

58. I would like to hear an answer to that also. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. Well when you don't like the answer doesn't mean it wasn't answered...

[brush]

154. Ahhh . . . why is Aussie/Indonesia covert operations our business?

Before I get flamed let me say that Snowden did a service to our country by revealing the DOMESTIC INFO GATHERING. For that he is a legitimate whistle blower.

But by revealing the intricacies of our international covert operations that might thwart terror operations, and also other countries covert operation, he went too far.

I mean who is a somewhat naive 29-year-old to make decisions like that?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

158. but that's not what's being discussed

The assertion has been made that Snowden's revelations could start a war. I asked if that hypothetical war should be laid at Snowden's feet, or at the feet of the people doing the spying. A couple of people say that if war broke out, it would be Snowden's fault, and not the fault of those who spied on Indonesia. That is, of course, a nonsensical claim.

Regarding your questions about Snowden, I personally care most about the domestic spying that the NSA is doing. But I do think it's very useful to get this macro overview we're getting that shows how much sharing of ill-gained surveillance is happening with NSA and its 5-eyes partners (or whatever they call that collection of nations). I think this goes to show the huge scope of cooperative worldwide spying by NSA and its pals.

[brush]

184. Huh?

Last edited Tue Jan 28, 2014, 03:09 PM - Edit history (3)

You mean there is large-scale international spying going on?

If I may paraphrase Louie from Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked that there is spying going on in this establishment."

C'mon, that 's nothing new. And it's still not Snowden's decision to reveal what the US or Aussies or any other country are doing covertly. You can't possibly think the Indonesians aren't spying on Australia as well. Now because of this revelation they have to take actions to save face which may lead to sabre-rattling or even hostilities. Snowden would of course share some blame, for without the revelations their anti-people smuggling cooperation would have continued.

And what makes a somewhat naive 29-year-old (A TWENTY-NINE-YEAR-OLD, GODDAMMIT) who ditches everything, including his girlfriend without notice and runs to China with terabytes of stolen information, think he's the one to make those decisions?

There are reasons one has to be at least 35 to run for president — like more life experience and more mature judgement, which Snowden clearly lacks, and is why he's now stuck in Russia and pinning to come home.

I don't think he thought it through too well.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

218. If no one is shocked, if everyone knew, then your reason for warfare just evaporated.

[brush]

252. Guess you haven't kept up with the latest on the Aussie/Indonesia situation. nt

[JDPriestly]

309. Your question:

"What makes a somewhat naive 29-year-old (A TWENTY-NINE-YEAR-OLD, GODDAMMIT) who ditches everything, including his girlfriend without notice and runs to China with terabytes of stolen information, think he's the one to make those decisions?"

Love of the Constitution?

That's my guess.

He is probably an American patriot inspired by love for his country and for the rights promised us in the Constitution.

If a young man who joins the military and sacrifices an easy life for his country is a patriot, what about a young person who joins the NSA and sacrifices his career and a well-paid and easy life to warn his countrymen and the world of the loss of basic human rights?

I would say they are both sacrificing for their country. What do we call them.

[Igel]

216. It's not a nonsensical claim.

Take the situation of a wife whose husband is cheating on her. She knows he's cheating, but evaluates her situation and finds that the perks that come with a cheating husband outweigh the downside.

She may even--at least in former times--allow for this information to be relatively widespread as long as it can be ignored.

But as soon as everybody's speaking of it openly, then it's a different matter. Her reputation, her honor, her dignity are now at stake. Nothing has changed but it's now a matter of open, not private, offense. She is compelled to do something that she wouldn't have done before: Openly shame her husband, respond to the rumors and innuendo publicly, separate from, divorce him, and sue him.

In a sense you could say that it was the husband's indiscretion that ultimately caused this. (Then again, ultimately it depended upon their being married, both being heterosexual, both being born at the right times and meeting, or any number of other "ultimately"-statements.) The big point, though, is what made it from "this is tolerable" to "this is intolerable." That would be having the affair made public.

It's the same in politics. Obama is very likely going to deal with a matter of corruption, abuse of power, mismanagement, or an inappropriately run program--say, "Fast and Furious"--in a quiet and low-key manner. He might just rebuke the person or people involved. Doing something harsh might actually be counterproductive and draw attention to a distraction. However, if a leaker makes it a public matter, makes it something for the tabloids and talk shows, then the President would be forced to do something entirely different. What makes the difference? The public nature of what was done wrong. The claim could be made that the problem was the original, underlying problem. That could be dealt with in a low-key way. It's not nonsensical to say that public exposure alters how it has to be treated and, in fact, can make what isn't much of a problem into a problem. Take, for example, the IRS' way it was evaluationg applications for non-profit status. Many say there was no problem; some say there was a problem. Nonetheless, the publicity that accrued to the matter amplified the problem and forced it to be dealt with in a particular way. It's sort of silly to deny it--harshly moralist to deny it, which, in politics, is frequently a silly posture to maintain.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

219. If someone starts a war to save face, that entity is responsible for the war.

The party that told everyone what they already apparently knew can hardly be blamed if warfare breaks out just because someone didn't want to lose face. I understand your point, but I can't agree with it.

[TroglodyteScholar]

245. This is the most eloquent defense of this position I have seen in this thread

The blame is clearly shared. But what about the media? Where is their duty to report responsibly, and what was the motivation for this specific timing?

That's what I want to know.

To be clear, I still think that the nations engaging in these activities bear ultimate responsibility. You take a chance when you do things in secret...and that's a choice that was made well before any information was made public.

Snowden as a catalyst? Sure.
Snowdon as a cause? Hell no.

[JDPriestly]

312. A betrayed wife has the choice to stay with her husband or leave him.

If she cares so little about her marriage that she walks out when embarrassed by her husband's affair, she is responsible for that decision. It is her marriage. She can leave or stay.

Snowden spoke up in order to warn the world that electronic media are not a private means of communication, that someone is watching virtually every personal communication in the electronic media. Snowden spoke up to let the world know that we have all lost our basic right to privacy in our writings, our communications and our lives.

Snowden came forward because what he wished to reveal, the wrongs he had seen at the NSA, were public wrongs. They were not simply embarrassing information about a personal matter like a marriage. That is why exposing the conduct of intelligence agencies around the world that makes each of us less free is fine with me.

The internet is wonderful. So are phones. But I do not want the government collecting the records on my metadata. That is a serious invasion of privacy. Our Constitution protects us against that kind of invasion of privacy.

[JDPriestly]

307. If Indonesia or Australia claimed to be starting a war over this, it is m

likely that they are simply using the exposure of the surveillance as an excuse.

Most likely, the exposure of the surveillance will lead to apologies and negotiations to stop the Indonesians from the conduct that Australia does not like.

The revelations on both sides are embarrassing, but I doubt anyone will start a war over. That example is a red herring.

Countries do not start wars over that kind of a problem in this atomic age.

[Travis_0004]

66. It seem like Manning and Snowden were very similar yet people here defend Manning and attack Snowden

So why the difference? Based on your post, I can only assume you think the verdict for Manning was fair, and you are ok with it?

[sheshe2]

76. Manning stayed and faced the charges.

Snowden did not. He ran and dumped documents that could indeed hurt National security. Who knows what China or Russia were able to get off those laptops. His actions were reckless.

As for Manning's sentence, it was harsh in my opinion. Yet he knew his actions were illegal.

[Marr]

91. You showed no respect for Manning when she was in the news, prior to conviction.

I think the fact is that you're ok with one and not the other simply because one is still making Barrack Obama's administration look bad, and the other is not. It would be a waste of ammunition to keep slinging shit at Manning.

[sheshe2]

102. Seriously Marr?

Care to point out my disrespect. I for one stayed off the threads about Manning. However I have indeed dissed Snowden.

Actually I think Eddie is making himself look bad. As for this President, he is trying to make reforms of a program that has been around since...

Army predecessor

The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced back to April 28, 1917, three weeks after the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany in World War I. A code and cipher decryption unit was established as the Cable and Telegraph Section which was also known as the Cipher Bureau and Military Intelligence Branch, Section 8 (MI-8). It was headquartered in Washington, D.C. and was part of the war effort under the executive branch without direct Congressional authorization. During the course of the war it was relocated in the army's organizational chart several times. On July 5, 1917, Herbert O. Yardley was assigned to head the unit. At that point, the unit consisted of Yardley and two civilian clerks. It absorbed the navy's cryptoanalysis functions in July 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, and MI-8 moved to New York City on May 20, 1919, where it continued intelligence activities as the Code Compilation Company under the direction of Yardley.

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

[sheshe2]

117. So where are the links that you have accused me of defaming Manning?

You have made an accusation. I don't believe that is kosher here.

As for...

It would be a waste of ammunition to keep slinging shit at Manning.

Where did I sling shit at Manning here? I said the sentence was harsh. Saying he instead of she was a mistake, yet it was not meant as anything disrespectful, I forgot.

There is no place on this board that you will find me, disrespectful of GLTB. NOWHERE, Marr.

Yet you sit here in judgement and ACCUSE me of ...

You showed no respect for Manning when she was in the news, prior to conviction.

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 07:52 PM - Edit history (3)

I think the fact is that you're ok with one and not the other simply because one is still making Barrack Obama's administration look bad, and the other is not. It would be a waste of ammunition to keep slinging shit at Manning.

No links...nothing. Empty words Marr.

[cui bono]

295. So you are blatantly ignoring the content and simply looking at the veneer.

You are making a personal judgment about a situation that you clearly are not familiar with based on your posts saying that there are proper channels for whistleblowers - channels which will surely get you fired, slandered in attempts to discredit you, jail a ruined reputation and career.

To think so naively that he should just have stayed when the current administration is hell bent on prosecuting whistleblowers is to ignore the reality of the situation. Which is exactly what you are doing when the only reason you give as a difference between Manning and Snowden's deserving of support is one stayed and got tortured for his actions and one left the country to avoid that or other dire consequences. That is a very shallow and naive way to look at this, especially when the real issue is the fact that the NSA is spying on American citizens without cause. Somehow that doesn't bother you. The actual issue at hand is swept aside so you can defend your idol by attempting to tarnish the whistleblower who revealed your idol's blatant disrespect of the citizens of the US and the constitution.

[sheshe2]

297. Ah, who is really defending their idol...

that would be you...

Night, got to work tomorrow.

[cui bono]

299. I have no idol. I am against unconstitutionalNSA domestic spying.

And I don't defend right wing policies just because Obama proposes, enacts and escalates them.

[Logical]

116. LOL, yes, then his ass would be in jail already. Biased much? n-t

[cali]

212. yep. I'm fine with it. since you asked. I'm less fine with your beloved NSA

[sheshe2]

244. Sorry cali...

NSA is not my beloved~

[cui bono]

290. Citation please for how Snowden is "dumping these documents willy nilly".

Link?

[JDPriestly]

305. Because 1) he could not have just walked up to a member of

Congress and said, "Guess what the NSA is doing?" and had he gone to the D.C. office of a member of Congress, the whole thing would probably have been noted by security or maybe even cameras in Congress.

The member of Congress would not have believed him, and what is more, the member of Congress could not have made it public and, further, when the Congress called the head of the NSA to testify, the head of the NSA lied. The NSA was less than honest with Congress. It appears that not even the President really knew what the NSA was doing (for example its surveillance on Angela Merkel and that it may be reading content, not just collecting metadata without a warrant).

2) had he approached a member of Congress via any form of electronic media, the NSA would have recorded the call and collected the metadata.

In either case, he probably would have been arrested and silenced before he could reach the public.

So that is most likely why Snowden went public. He saw wrongdoing and felt there was no safe way to expose it.

[gcomeau]

50. It's not an either/or question. -eom

[iamthebandfanman]

69. I think its pretty naive

to expect the major nations of this world to not spy on others.

so yeah, I blame the revealer.. who had no right to butt into their foreign affairs.

again, domestic spying in the united states is terrifying.. and should be plenty cause for outrage... but what these agencies do outside of the country is a necessary thing.. whether you choose to believe it or not.

unfortunately the world is no where close to global peace.. and human beings are still capable of terrible actions using a nation as its support system... so until we live in a world where you can TRULY trust everyone you meet... yeah.

you know, when people got angry about us spying on Germany ... I kinda rolled my eyes... because those same people seem to forget the german people not once but THREE TIMES attempted a global takeover with the same basic mantra of 'germans are better than you'.... and that was just over the course of 70 years. to think people just STOP believing and thinking that way...
have we learned nothing from history?

[KT2000]

75. Every country has their own

spy networks. This is not new nor is it unusual in the world. That Snowden has dumped info concerning international spying information leaves him over the line in my book. He has no idea how these bits and pieces fit together but he is willing to decide for all of us what other countries learn - even if it could lead to wars with us involved or other countries.

Revealing spying on US citizens is one thing but engaging in international politics is something else. I would blame Snowden if a war results.

[pnwmom]

81. I blame the revelation. Spying is a fact of life. All countries with the capability do it.

But countries exercise restraint and use diplomacy in deciding how to act. Snowden's revelation just blows everything up.

Our spying saved considerable lives in WW2, because we had already broken some codes that were used in the war. Snowden's revelations about international spying are just making diplomacy even harder.

[1awake]

83. Exactly. I'm so sick of hearing that bullshit that

somehow its the messenger's fault for telling, and not the people who are doing. It's a joke.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. So how will you ever learn just what was leaked to other countries?

and how that information is being used. What makes Snowden and GG the authorities on what is and isn't relevant? Why are they deciding what to reveal and when...and for that matter what the heck other govts have gotten from them. They have NO way to prove that they have in any way protected that information.

[kelliekat44]

134. If a tree falls in a forest and...nt

[grasswire]

3. the daily banter?

Blogs that use the words "might be" and "if" and "possible" are conjecture.

[Aerows]

9. Shh!

We knew all of this for decades anyway, so Snowden's revelations are nothing interesting. At all. We all knew this. Nothing to see here.

Or wait, Indonesia spies on Australia so it's nothing to get excited over.

Regardless, Snowden has boxes in his garage and is a loner who left his pole dancing ballerina in an effort to become a worldwide wanted man, because he must be a spy due to revealing everything he knew instead of quietly passing documents on for money.

Have I hit all of the talking points, yet?

[Maedhros]

73. You missed "liar" and "coward". [n/t]

[QC]

100. Snowden was unfriendly to his neighbors in Hawaii.

(These are presumably the same neighbors who told reporters about the boxes in the garage.)

[cui bono]

296. Well you forgot to bring Greenwald into it.

Because he forced his husband to carry documents for him, doncha know.

[Luminous Animal]

4. As Charles Pierce said, diplomacy is hard when you're stupid.

So, if you're keeping score at home, here's a review of our game so far. The Australian government, in violation of diplomatic norms and (arguably) international law, and at the behest of the NSA, engages in the covert surveillance of the leadership of Indonesia, a country the cooperation of which it is actively seeking. In response to learning that its leadership was being spied upon, Indonesia demands an explanation. Australia flips them off. Indonesia breaks off the cooperation. Australia sends warships into Indonesian waters. Indonesia flexes for a couple of days. And the real problem is that we found out about the wiretapping, and not that governments are most dangerous when they find themselves threatened or embarrassed. Diplomacy is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid.

[Aerows]

5. Charles Pierce

has boxes in his garage, never really loved Obama, and we knew all of this for decades, so it isn't a big deal.

[okaawhatever]

32. At the behest of the NSA? No pone else is claiming that. Australia has it's own spy agency and has

it's own reasons to spy on Indonesia. Until I see any kind of evidence that Australia was acting for the NSA i'm going to call bull___ on that claim.

[Luminous Animal]

98. The program that the OP and Pierce are referring to is an NSA program

called STATEROOM. And yes, Australia has its own spies. In the case of STATEROOM, its spies were working in an NSA program.

[Aerows]

186. "Five Eyes"

They share information.

[Luminous Animal]

202. Yes. But Stateroom is an NSA program eliciting the assistance of our "Five Eyes" partners.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Libertarians are salivating at the thought of Snowden's revelations starting a war

They would love it.

[Aerows]

10. Because Libertarians, Progressives

and everyone else just LOVE intervening in wars, love starting them, and can't grasp the genius of preventing them by pissing off everyone on the planet by spying on their leaders. Idiots.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Progressives love starting wars?

Who said that?

[Aerows]

14. You were the one discussing

how people adore starting wars, having people die, and all that war entails. Perhaps you could explain your post more thoroughly?

[Cali_Democrat]

15. My post was specific to Libertarians

Please try to read my post before making such laughable statements.

Progressives love starting wars? That's a good one!

[Aerows]

18. Oh, so YOU specifically are a Progressive? Please stand up and IDENTIFY in this thread :D n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Nowehere did I say Progressives wanted to start a war

You just pulled that one out of your....you know what.

[Aerows]

25. Ah ah ah

Why are you defending Progressives now? Are you one of the dreaded Progressives? Because I am, and most of the ones that have been ardently against the SPY state have been Progressives. I just wondered if you were amongst our number, or if you had a completely different agenda entirely.

Please, proceed.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. You're a Progressive?

[Aerows]

29. Did I lose my credentials

the second I disagreed with an Obama policy? I either love him with my whole heart, or I despise him and the ground he walks on?

And yes, I am a proud Progressive, always have been, always will be. What made you think that I am not? I await your comments.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. Based on your replies to me....

I do not think you're a Progressive. You're engaging in conservative behavior.

You tried to twist my post to make it seem like I said Progressives love starting wars when I said no such thing.

Twisting words is conservative tactic...so in my book you're no Progressive.

You're a proud Progressive?

[Aerows]

38. I'm thrilled you recognize conservative behavior

specifically, ignoring when there is a policy problem, but defending party and personality to the hilt.

Yep, I'm a conservative, alright. Everything about me just SCREAMS it.

[Cali_Democrat]

41. Yep....you definitely have it down

Don't pretend to be something you're not.

You definitely don't have me fooled, but you go on with your bad self.

[Aerows]

43. Oh, I will

Never doubt it

[Cali_Democrat]

45. "I am a proud Progressive"

Sorry...you still have me laughing.

[Aerows]

46. Are you a Progressive?

Please step up to the plate and say so.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. LOL....you think I'm gonna play your conservative games?

You think I have to prove myself...to YOU???

Who the hell are you anyways?

Oh hell naw.

[Aerows]

52. I think you knew

where this was headed the second you replied to it, and yet you still took the plunge. Of course you won't answer "Are you a Progressive". We both know why you won't, too.

[Cali_Democrat]

57. You replied to me first, dear.

I'll ask again...who the hell are you anyways?

I have to prove myself....to YOU?

[Aerows]

88. Oh, I think the point was made

loud and clear.

You assume I think you have something left to prove. You really don't.

[Cali_Democrat]

90. "I am a proud Progressive"

Sorry....just can't help myself!

Who are you again?

[Aerows]

92. Interesting question

Who are you again?

[Cali_Democrat]

96. That was the question I posed to you.

You seemed to think you know me.

I'll be honest, I'm not sure who the hell you are. I don't recognize your screename at all.

I don't even know if I've interacted with you on DU before. If I did, it was obviously very forgettable.

Now you think I have to prove myself...to YOU?

Oh hell naw!

I don't play that.

[Aerows]

97. Well

I have been hanging around in GD for quite a while, and did so in DU2. I must not have agreed with you enough to be memorable.

Maybe you can just go on and forget about me again? I won't claim I know you if you won't claim to know me!

[Cali_Democrat]

99. There are numerous people I've disagreed with, but I still remember their names

You on the other hand are very forgettable. Perhaps it's because you're just not intellectually stimulating to me.

There's nothing wrong with healthy dialogue and disagreements over policy issues.

I usually pay very little attention to people who twist the words of others and question people about being a progressive or not.

You obviously treat DU like High School.

I pay very little attention to people who do that.

[Aerows]

103. Okay

Well, let's agree not to discuss anything ever again, since all you have done in the last few posts is insult me, and I haven't responded in kind.

Food for thought.

[Cali_Democrat]

104. You're the one who initially replied to me claiming I said Progressives love to start wars

My first reply to the OP was short and specific to LIBERTARIANS.

So right off the bat, you were dishonest when you decided to stick your nose into my reply.

I don't like people who are dishonest and I pretty much pay them no attention.

[Aerows]

106. And you also

denigrated me for calling myself a Progressive, and yet you would never call yourself one of those.

See, you might not remember me, but I WELL remember you. You are one of those for whom "progressive" is a dirty, nasty word, yet you pretend that you know who is and who is not a progressive. Disingenuous much?

[Cali_Democrat]

107. LOL. There you go again

"you are one of those for whom "progressive" is a dirty, nasty word"

LMAO!!! That's why I don't remember you at all. It's funny how you think you know me so well, but I really have no clue who you are.

It's not about me denigrating you because you called yourself a progressive. It's just that I don't think you're a progressive. Progressives don't twist people's words like you did in your initial reply to me.

You cannot engage in honest conversation or discuss policy issues. That's why you're so very forgettable.

[Aerows]

108. Yes, well

if honest conversation on policy issues means agreeing with you, forget me again, please.

[Cali_Democrat]

110. You really have a hard time understanding what people say

and it showed in your first reply to me when you claimed I said Progressives love to start wars.

I never said honest conversation about policy issues can only be honest if you agree with me. That's silly. Reading comprehension appears to be an issue here.

There are posters I've disagreed with before, but it was still honest conversation. You love to misrepresent what others say.

That's reason why you're so forgettable

[Aerows]

111. Well

Like I said, forget me, please!

[Cali_Democrat]

112. I usually do forget people who cannot engage in policy discussions

that obviously includes you.

DU is not High School....you should try to remember that.

[Aerows]

113. Alright

In closing up this little tête-à-tête, I'll offer that when you point a finger at someone, there are 4 pointing right back at you.

[Cali_Democrat]

114. You really need to stop twisting people's words

I never said progressive was a dirty word and I never said progressives love to start wars.

Honest conversation is easy, but apparently it's nearly impossible for you to engage in.

[Aerows]

115. Have a good night n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

119. In the future, don't misrepresent what people say

It'll make things much easier for you, then perhaps you could actually engage in honest dialogue and policy discussions.

[brush]

172. Enough, you two

Let's get back to the discussion.

[Cali_Democrat]

215. Oh...look who's back from their timeout

Glad to see you're behaving yourself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

126. Every country is spying on each other....that is not news at all...

and has been since the dawn of time.....

[flamingdem]

17. He certainly is front page news for the last week

I wonder what's behind that -- he wants attention paid to him for a reason, for sure.

[sheshe2]

19. I think he wants to come home very badly...

flamingdem. So he wants his story in the news again.

[flamingdem]

35. It is winter over there

and the truth of a lifetime in Russia must be sinking in.

But I thought for a second that he might be a token that could be used politically in the US.
He could move the conversation to "The NSA" and away from inequality, women's rights, etc.

Useful to certain players if portrayed in even a semi-admiring media light.

[sheshe2]

37. That is indeed food for thought, flamingdem.

Bait and switch so to speak.

[msanthrope]

59. Imagine being in a Russian winter...unable to drink. nt

[flamingdem]

63. He can't drink?

Now I do feel sorry for him! Vodka is the single reason to live there!

[msanthrope]

67. Comrade Eddie claims adult-onset epilepsy. The number one cause of that is alcoholism.

Personally I think it's adult onset schizophrenia....but either way, he can't drink on his meds.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

124. A Bill Frist-style remote diagnosis. What part of law school covers medical diagnoses?

[msanthrope]

204. Dude...Comrade Eddie's PR team spoke openly about his illness until they

realized the implications of doing so. Are you saying he doesn't have epilepsy?

[freshwest]

269. Oh, yes he can. The results aren't pretty, though. He's there for the free-dumbs. BTW,

I like Russians. But not to live there in the winter.

Or in the Midwest or East Coast this week, either...

[sheshe2]

121. LOL.

I am having a Martini as we speak!

Poor Snow~

[flamingdem]

127. Wodka or Gin?

yummy!

[sheshe2]

131. Wodka that is kept in the freezer!

Three olives~

It's cold in the NE we need warmth from the inside out, flamingdem.

[Comrade Grumpy]

156. You guys are funny, in a sad sort of way. n/t

[Phlem]

231. +1

-p

[Luminous Animal]

23. So. He controls the news, does he?

[Aerows]

28. You must be a Libertarian

I mean, you defend the release of the information, so you must want war, too. You couldn't possibly be a Progressive, since none of the ones that defend the bashing of Snowden will admit to being Progressives, either.

Or will they? You are either for Obama or are against him. There is no middle ground, like say, disliking a policy he has kept in place. No, you must love Obama or hate him.

[neverforget]

77. and that is the modern day conservative behavior. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

129. Guess who else calls themselves "Progressive"?

bet you will deny it....but it just goes to show you....you can call yourself whatever you like..

[Whisp]

147. oh myyyyy... Hillary considers herself a progressive...

I suppose she progresses towards the bank one step at a time (or sends her staff) to cram that cash she gets from the likes of the Carlyle Group and Goldman Sachs for her pretty speeches. Then she can see her accounts progress into very large numbers.

hahaha.

I'm not always in agreement with who declares themselves progressive and not, but this is the best one I have seen yet to laugh at.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. or perhaps the term Progressive is meaningless...

and your response is EXACTLY what I expected and was pointing out...thank you for proving it!

[Whisp]

152. Yeh, some Progressives want Instant Gratification

kind of at odds with the word and what it means.

I WANT IT NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
screams the Progressive.

Funny stuff.

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. If I remember it correctly...it was Hillary using it...the first time I heard it!

But if he wants to align himself with Ms Clinton's views....

[AgingAmerican]

274. Well, she did work with them (Goldman Sachs)

...in Obama's white house.

Which bank will Obama use to keep the cash he gets from making speeches to those same groups once he is out of office? Perhaps Bank of America?

[Whisp]

275. Obama is not much like the Clintons

That is why I respect him, and not them.

[AgingAmerican]

279. Well, he is definitely to their right politically

So you are correct, he is 'not much like them'. He thinks so differently than her, that he made her his secretary of state. Presidents are like that, ya know?.

He will make speeches to the same groups, and you know it, and you will defend him for doing so when the time comes.

[Whisp]

280. to their right?

hahahaha!
that brought a huge big smiley on my face.

my dog is even laughing.

You should use that predictor/crystal ball of yours for lotto numbers or the horse races and stop world hunger.

[AgingAmerican]

291. Very much so

He has adopted large chunks of the GOP agenda. I believe the term for it is "Third way®". In the Third Way® world, problems are dealt with by applying the problem as part of the 'solution'. This is done in the misguided belief that it will cause a 'Kumbaya' moment between left and right which will 'fundamentally transform' the country. Of course, predictibly, this 'Kumbaya' moment never materialized. All it did was transform it deeper into the abyss. The GOP went at Obama full throttle, just like they did the Clinton's when Bill was in office. There will never be 'Kumbaya' between the American right and left.

As the Boner best put it, "I got 98% of what I wanted".

[cui bono]

298. Of course he's to the right of the Clintons. Why do you think he isn't? n/t

[Whisp]

308. lol

can someone else say this one more time so I can enjoy it again?

Obama to the Right of the Clintons...


Lanny, lanny dat ewe?

[cui bono]

313. TPP, escalation of BushCo's domestic spying, banksters in the WH....

Oh, gee, why am I responding? I forgot you won the argument when you used 4 laughing smilies. And you alternated them too, which shows extraordinary debating skills. My bad.

I wish I were as articulate as you.

[Phlem]

232. Tell me about it.

It's fucking rampant around here, it's like.......arguing with Republicans.

-p

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Well, this story came back up because the Australian FM said she spies 'for human freedom'

and that it was treachery for Snowden to let people know about the heroic acts her government does to protect human freedom. The revelation that Australia spied on the Indonesian president was back in November.

Bishop praised cooperation with Washington and reserved harsh words for Snowden, whose revelations led Indonesia to halt work with Australia to stem people smuggling, a key priority for new conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Shortly before a meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden in Washington, Bishop said Snowden "continues to shamefully betray his nation while skulking in Russia.

"This represents unprecedented treachery; he is no hero," she added, in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Snowden claims his actions were driven by a desire for transparency, but in fact they strike at the heart of the collaboration between those nations in world affairs that stand at the forefront of protecting human freedom," she said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5giNFvjNasUsGxdqb7kX_YZ2so3zA?docId=fc562ac2-98e1-4103-8c4c-57b6b9fdd422

And then, the day after she said that, the Australian government sent its navy into Indonesian waters. To protect human freedom, I guess. But, all in all, it's the Australian government's doing that this story has come up. They're 'what's behind it'.

[grasswire]

227. thank you for that distinction. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

161. ...is a monumentally stupid thing to assert.

It doesn't even make sense.

Libertarians want war between Australia and Indonesia? Why? Who says so?

[Cali_Democrat]

191. Libertarians want chaos and disorder

You can be sure they would be stimulated if Indonesia and Australia were engaged in a shooting war over these Snowden revelations. It would make them positively giddy.

[cui bono]

301. Where are you getting your ideas about Libertarian beliefs/desires? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

318. From those same Libertarian dumbasses. nt

[cui bono]

319. Non-answer, but thanks for playing.

So do you know what Libertarians stand for or not? You keep saying things about them but when asked you can't say why you are saying that's what they want/believe in.

[Cali_Democrat]

320. You seem awfully defensive when it comes to me going after libertarians.....

Hmmmmmm.....

[cui bono]

321. Not at all. But you keep avoiding answering my questions, and now you're trying to deflect.

I'd like to know where you get your ideas on what Libertarians believe so that's what I asked.

Care to finally answer? You've stated they can't wait to get into a war and that they desire chaos and something else, I forget the term you used. I'm particularly curious why you think they are drooling over war.

So... come on. Surely you can back up a bold statement such as that.

[Cali_Democrat]

322. Yep...very very defensive

[cui bono]

331. Really? How so? And why are you avoiding answering a simple question?

I'll ask again...

Why do you think Libertarians salivate at the thought of going to war?

[QC]

205. Many people here use the word "libertarian'

in exactly the same way that teabaggers use the word 'socialism,' to mean anything that they happen not to like.

It's best to ignore such people.

[cui bono]

332. That's not the only similarity to teabaggers. But I disagree with you on using ignore.

If you ignore them their propaganda and absurd posts are left unchallenged. And we must challenge the blind apologists who spout untruths and level baseless accusations in order to defend one person at the cost of discarding principles and values.

[Phlem]

234. But in secret she has a thing for Snowden.

Just gotta beat that dead horse dead, you know? Yes " libertarians" want world wars! It's a binary choice and it's really that simple!



-p

[freshwest]

271. Yes, there or here. All the better to install their fascist Koch brothers dystopia. n/t

[cui bono]

300. What? Libertarians want war? Since when? Links please. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

323. LOL

[cui bono]

324. See, you have absolutely no answer to that. Why do you bother to post here?

And why make such bold assertions that you can't substantiate?

Do you think your LOL wave post makes you look good and smart? I guarantee you it does not.

[Cali_Democrat]

325. I touched a nerve, eh?

[cui bono]

326. No, you didn't. That's another little ploy people like you like to use. I'm simply trying to get

you to let me know where you got the idea that Libertarians are salivating over war.

Care to answer or are you staying up all night just to play immature games?

[Cali_Democrat]

327. Oh yes I did. It's quite obvious my statement about libertarians has you grinding your teeth

[cui bono]

328. Yes you did what? Answer my question? Nope. What is this the 5th time you are avoiding it?

Where did you get the idea that Libertarians are salivating over war?

[Cali_Democrat]

329. So very defensive of libertarians. nt

[cui bono]

330. How so? And why do you refuse to answer a simple question? Where you get your info?

Now there's two questions. Care to drag this out until there are three? Oh, actually I think I have a third one.

First the original question: Where did you get the idea that Libertarians salivate over going to war?

2. What makes you think I'm being defensive? (I know why you are accusing me of it, but if you are actually being genuine with it you should be able to point to what makes you really think that.)

3. Do you not understand that someone can defend facts regardless of whether or not it is their belief system? I can defend what a bible thumper believes or doesn't believe without believing what they believe. For example, they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Now if you told me they believe the earth is 10 years old I can ask you why you think they believe that without being a bible thumper or believing that myself.

But you knew that. You simply want to accuse me of being a Libertarian in some round about way so as to attempt to deflect fromt he real question. But guess what? I still want to know the answer to my original question.

Where did you get the idea that Libertarians salivate over going to war? It's a simple question. So telling that you refuse to answer it. It doesn't make any sense not to answer it other than you are simply a game player and extremely immature.

So yet again, third time in this post:

Where did you get the idea that Libertarians salivate over going to war?

Come on.... you can do it.

[LittleBlue]

7. Perhaps Australia shouldn't have been committing illegal acts of espionage

They should think twice before tapping the phone of a foreign leader. If there is conflict, it's their own fault.

[SidDithers]

12. Which Australian law makes the actions illegal?...

Specifically.

Sid

[LittleBlue]

20. International laws make it illegal

The International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights was written in 1966 and came into force in 1976, decades before the internet transformed the way people communicate around the world. A provision in the international covenant, Article 17, says "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation." It also states that "everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/10/24/exclusive_germany_brazil_turn_to_un_to_restrain_american_spies

Unless of course you intend to make the right-wing argument that international law is meaningless. Which is probably why you specified Australian law, as if Indonesian and international law are of no consequence.

[Egnever]

123. Hardly

arbitrary or unlawful interference. Leaves a pretty big window.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. since when is a "covenant" a law?

Its an agreement....

[Adrahil]

209. How does apply in cases of foreign intelligence?

That treaty is about how a nation treats those under its jurisdiction. It does not, as far as I can tell, have anything to do with gathering foreign intelligence. I have no doubt that if spies in Indoesia were caught they would be subject to Indonesian law.

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. Illegal? Who says so?

[Phlem]

236. Thanks for that.

Common sense is sparse around these parts.

-p

[mike_c]

8. what's "reckless and ill-conceived" is the DSD tapping Yudhoyono's phone....

For pete's sake. Snowden didn't do that. His actions aren't the ones that might start a war. Indonesia isn't angry because Snowden revealed the spying. They're angry because the spying occurred.

This OP is an all too common fallacy. It's surveillance state propaganda, and little else.

[grasswire]

229. well, I learned something about the blogger

Found a post written by a friend of his. See below.

Found out that he grew up in D.C. and lives in Hawaii. (Maybe he's the neighbor who saw Snowden's messy garage?)

Found out that he is an Obama loyalist.

Here's the blog post I found from a link on dailykos:

Ron Stouffer // June 10, 2013 at 5:06 pm // Reply

I know Bob slightly. This surprises me. I wonder if Bush were in office if Bob would be more concerned? Somehow, Obama lovers seem to have a double standard. Why they fear their government when Bush does this, but give Obama a “pass” is baffling. If people had a consistent philosophy and standards, they would not treat Obama differently. Same on droning the hell out of foreign countries—a war crime by the way. Big outrage when Bush waged unilateral, undeclared war–but not when Obama does it. It all comes down to hero worship and partisan blindness. I am disappointed in Bob, whose The War Effort was such a beautiful depiction of nationalistic chauvinism. Principles apply, whether—Obama, Hillary or Bush!!!!! Or else your argument lacks credibility.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

246. Cesca lives in Hawaii?

LOL Maybe he's really one of the lead cheerleaders here on DU. Mahalo~!

[grasswire]

333. hmmmmmmmm.....

food for thought. I'll be watching that.

[Broward]

11. The Obama fan base is throwing everything at Snowden hoping something finally sticks.

[sheshe2]

160. Snowden needs no help from us....

he is doing a bang up job on his own. Poor Eddie~

[Ed Suspicious]

181. Why do you call him Eddie? Are you his friend? I believe he goes by Edward.

[sheshe2]

183. I think of him as Eddie Haskell on Leave it to Beaver~

That's why Ed Suspicious.

[cui bono]

302. Now I see why your thoughts are so deep on this subject.

50's TV. Wow.

[Savannahmann]

22. It is commonplace in criminal enterprises to blame the one who speaks too.

Organized Crime Families in the last century would denounce and decry those who turned informant and told the world about the illegal operations that were going on. These "stool pigeons" were hated by the criminals.

It was the Stoolies fault that Mikey went to prison. It wasn't Mikey's fault for committing the crime, it was the Stoolie's fault because he told.

I find it interesting that we have recycled those discredited arguments in order to denounce the one who exposed the illegal and immoral actions.

Oh well, keep it up. Best of luck and all that sort of thing. Make the Stoolies pay.

[Maedhros]

78. This site is infested with a particularly insidious cadre of posters

who think that constitutes some kind of argument.

[mindwalker_i]

86. Damn, that made me laugh

because it's so sadly true, but I immediately concluded that I couln't include the laughing-dude smiley in this reply, lest it be considered an argument.

[Maedhros]

89. I can imagine these types interacting with one another:

NoCents:

FarGone:

NoCents: ! !

FarGone: , ,

NoCents:

[sheshe2]

182. It has indeed, Maedhros!

though we may indeed be talking about a different cadre. Yes I believe we are~

[Maedhros]

206. Did you just make a post demonstrating the exact behavior I was mocking? [n/t]

[cui bono]

303. Yes. But since she used the :rofl: smiley she automatically wins the argument.

I think that's how it works. Especially if there's 3-5 of them in the post.



I WIN!!!

[Phlem]

237. Sorry, couldn't help it.

I fully agree.

-p

[bvar22]

36. "Revelations" do NOT "start wars".

The Acts of the Government Officials involved is what REALLY Starts the WARS.

Blaming this on Snowden's Revelations is like blaming the torture at Abu Ghraib on the cameras that took the photos. (Which is exactly what Rumsfeld did.)

How BIZARRE that a WAR would be blamed on a Truth Teller,
and NOT on the people hiding in the dark and violating Intentional Protocol or International Law.
THOSE are the Evil Doers NOT the Whistle Blowers.
The real Evil Doers would much prefer YOU to blame the Whistle Blowers,
but fortunately, anyone with ANY sense at all can see right through that scam.

[rhett o rick]

175. What are you trying to do dampen the "lynch Snowden" movement? The conservatives among us

hate whistle-blowers and love authoritarian leaders like lying Clapper a Republican. I guess they think that any authoritarian in a storm.

With the President selling us down the river with the TPP and his favorite Penny P. and selling out the Constitution with Republicans Clapper and Alexander, all they have is to attack Snowden.

[Phlem]

240. And another Thank You bvarr22

I mean talk about stretching the truth.

Fuck , I am so tired of that shit. Spin Spin Spin...........

-p

[WilliamPitt]

39. The revelation is the problem, not the spying.

Natch.

[sheshe2]

47. A dumping of the documents all over the world is the work of a hero!

Natch

[Maedhros]

80. Documents were given by Snowden to two individuals (Greenwald and Poitras)

who have been very judicious in how they released them. Hardly "dumping all over the world."

Why do you work so hard to give political cover to the NSA?

[mindwalker_i]

93. I'm pretty sure the answer to your question

Is that there's a D in the white house, and this NSA spying thing makes him look bad. Therefore, a certain group of people is going all out to protect said D, to the point of defending mass spying on all of us.

The thing is, Snowden isn't a perfect leaker. What he leaked didn't only show the spying, it was a little more of a dirty bomb. My feeling is that I'll take it and the other dangers from the other leaked stuff, becasue this issue is so important.

[sheshe2]

144. So how do you know for a fact that China and Russia got nothing from the laptops?

Do you have irrefutable knowledge that they were safe.

As for Greenwald and Poitras? How do you irrefutably know that they are "very judicious" in how they release them? The article was by...

November article by The Guardian‘s Ewen MacAskill revealed that in 2009 Australia’s NSA counterpart,

You do not believe the President or any other US official, yet your faith lies with "the judicious ones Greenwald and Poitras" and lest we forget Snowden.

I am not defending NSA...yet you are putting your faith in these three. Wow!

[Maedhros]

166. That makes...little or no sense.[n/t]

[sheshe2]

169. Seriously?

[Maedhros]

173. This:

You do not believe the President or any other US official, yet your faith lies with "the judicious ones Greenwald and Poitras" and lest we forget Snowden.

I am not defending NSA...yet you are putting your faith in these three. Wow!

makes no sense.

[bvar22]

217. You made the claim.

You should provide the support for your claim.

"How do you know he didn't?"
is embarrassingly insufficient.

[sheshe2]

251. What claim?

"How do you know he didn't?"

My post...

So how do you know for a fact that China and Russia got nothing from the laptops?

Do you have irrefutable knowledge that they were safe.

As for Greenwald and Poitras? How do you irrefutably know that they are "very judicious" in how they release them? The article was by...

November article by The Guardian‘s Ewen MacAskill revealed that in 2009 Australia’s NSA counterpart,

You do not believe the President or any other US official, yet your faith lies with "the judicious ones Greenwald and Poitras" and lest we forget Snowden.

I am not defending NSA...yet you are putting your faith in these three. Wow!

What exactly is your question to my post, bvar?

[AgingAmerican]

278. So how do you know for a fact that China and Russia got anything from the laptops?

Do you have irrefutable knowledge that they weren't safe?

Why do you love to be spied on?

[sheshe2]

283. Oh let us be honest here...

I asked this question.

So how do you know for a fact that China and Russia got nothing from the laptops?

I did not make a statement, I asked a question.

The whole point is we do not know what they got off the computers, they have the expertise to have gleaned data off those laptops that Snowden placed sensitive data on. Guess many here feel a thirty year old has every right to release data that may or may not hurt our national security and our people.

It is said that the spying is the issue, yet fail to understand that when this is leaked by a 30 year old that ran away. The repercussions could be catastophic for our country.

[AgingAmerican]

287. Your defense of blanket authoritarianism is duly noted

...and soundly rejected.

[sheshe2]

289. As is yours...

[AgingAmerican]

292. I don't defend blanket authoritarianism

On the contrary, I am 'soundly' against it.

[sheshe2]

293. Good for you...

Good night!

[AgingAmerican]

294. Indeed, good for me

Good night yourself!

[Whisp]

149. somehow judicious and GG should Not be in the same sentence.

it could be a new oxymoron tho:

Judicious Glenn Greenwald.

Like Jumbo Shrimp

[cui bono]

304. Really? So you can show that he has not been judicious?

Please proceed.

[Adrahil]

210. Hmmm... don;t think I agree with your use of "judicious."

It's one thing to reveal domestic surveillance which may or may not violate the law. It's another to expose foreign intelligence gathering which is perfectly legitimate. And doing the first, which might be seen as beneficial to American citizens doesn't justify the second, which does not.

[Maedhros]

211. I'm not an imperialist, so I'm not worried about the weakening of our international hegemony

via revelation of our shady practices.

And the nature of the foreign intelligence gathering, which you call "perfectly legitimate", is open to debate. Tapping the phones of allied heads-of-state? Stealing industrial secrets from Siemens? These things do nothing to protect American citizens from "terrorism", but that is the justification for the programs used to do these things.

You may agree with this "if America does it, it's not illegal" policy but, as I said, I'm not an imperialist therefore I find fault with it.

[Adrahil]

213. First please don't put words in my mouth.

and saying I "may" believe it is still rhetorically shady. I'm fine with you asserting a opinion, but please don't assign a position to me I have not embraced.

But the point of collecting foreign intelligence isn't JUST to prevent terrorism. And yeah, I think tapping the phones of foreign leaders is legit. And industrial espionage is legitimate in some some circumstances (not just to funnel secrets to American companies, though).

And BTW, I reject imperialism. I think we need to quit being the world's policeman, bring troops home and VASTLY reduce our foreign military adventures. To do that effectively, an effective foreign intelligence apparatus is even MORE important.

[Phlem]

241. you really believe this?

"And BTW, I reject imperialism. I think we need to quit being the world's policeman, bring troops home and VASTLY reduce our foreign military adventures."

While I agree with your concept you know that will never happen. Once they (individuals or groups in a government) have power they won't let it go *see Republicans*. That a basic concept in (at least in our system) government.



-p

[Adrahil]

247. It's what I want, not what I think is immediately achievable. NT

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. and one person deciding for everyone else what should remain private....is the work of a "hero"

natch!

[bvar22]

220. More misinformation Talking Points posted by the defenders of the NSA.

Snowden himself has revealed nothing.
He turned the information over to two credible journalists Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald
who represent two credible News Agencies.
They and their editorial staffs have decide WHAT is released, and WHEN it is released.

That information has been posted numerous times to DU,
so I believe you already KNOW that,
but since it doesn't fit the approved false narrative,
it is ignored.


Please support for your claim that Snowden is the one deciding what should remain private,
and what should be released.


....or is just making stuff up good enough for you and your friends.

[VanillaRhapsody]

222. Oh really?

there is a thread on DU right now reporting how improper redacting by Snowden et. al. has revealed the name of an NSA operative....

So much for hero status!

Like I said...who died and left HIM boss? I don't remember voting for him.....He doesn't nor should he be the arbiter of what is or isn't classified information....his lack of concern has been duly noted.

[bvar22]

223. Please post links to support your claim.

Without them, all we have is your unsupported conjecture and fabrications.

"There is a thread somewhere" does not count.
That is as bad as FOX News reporting that "Some Say...."


I would like to thank you and the handful of other supporters of the NSA for your embarrassing participation in this thread. I found it revealing and inspiring.


I have only one remaining question:
If Snowden had done this when Bush was President,
would your position be the same?

My position was the same,... and remains the same:

*Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Government surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Laws and Democracy can not co-exist.

*Secret Courts and Democracy can not-co-exist.

*Our Democracy depends on an informed electorate.

You either believe in Democracy,
or you don't.
It IS that simple.

[VanillaRhapsody]

224. Easy Peasy...see for yourself!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4400162

[bvar22]

225. And THAT thread has NOTHING to do with Snowden.

Even Bob Cesca of the blog The Daily Banter was very careful to state that the information he was citing comes from;

"First, an article was published by [font size=3]NBC News[/font] in association with Glenn Greenwald about an NSA operation codenamed “Squeaky Dolphin.” A second revelation was [font size=3]posted by The Guardian in partnership with The New York Times and ProPublica[/font], which covered an NSA document that revealed how the NSA and the British GCHQ are able to collect information on various targets via “leaky” smartphone apps like Angry Birds.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/01/the-name-of-an-nsa-agent-exposed-in-poorly-redacted-snowden-document/

So your problem is with [font size=3]NBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, and ProPublica[/font]
and NOT Edward Snowden.

Snowden did exactly the right ting.
He turned his information over to TWO credible Journalists who work for credible News Organizations.
It was THEIR decision about WHAT should be released, and WHEN to release it.


...but don't let those facts interrupt a perfectly good Circle Jerk based on phony suppositions.

Again, thanks for your performance and the [Dancing Bear performances of the handful of supporters of Government Spying in this thread.
It is embarrassingly revealing to anyone with even modest cognitive skills.

[VanillaRhapsody]

226. it doesn't? hahahaha...

my ass off!

[bvar22]

228. I smell something burning.

Better go check your oil.
You're at least 2 quarts low ,
and everybody knows that ain't good for your engine.

[VanillaRhapsody]

230. Uh no....best check your "hero worshipping status" indicator light

I think it might be needing a "tune up" because it looks like the "filter" has gone bad!

[cui bono]

306. Oh silly bvar... can't you see VR just won the argument?

S/he used this ->

Case closed.

[hrmjustin]

258. go back to the library.

[hrmjustin]

261. I will miss you.

[Aerows]

42. 10 internet points to anyone

that can work "But everyone knows all countries spy on each other" and "we knew all of this decades ago" into the context of this post.

Weren't those #5 and #11 of the "Defense of NSA actions" talking point list?

[sheshe2]

51. I'll raise you 10 for the first picture posted of Paul Revere.

[Aerows]

54. Isn't Sid the one that usually posts that? n/t

[sheshe2]

64. As you know it's~

usGovOwesUs3Trillion ~

[Aerows]

65. Didn't that person

get banned?

[flamingdem]

60. Thumbdrive has turned into

dumb dive, as in the apartment Snowden inhabits lately.

Paul Revere over there is .. I don't know, Lenin?

[Whisp]

235. This is how the modern day Paul Revere gets his Kicks:

[flamingdem]

238. You know that gets me going, gotta get up outta my

chair n dance wooo hooo

Leaks just keep getting harder to get, y'know my thumb drives empty and I'm having a fit!

[Whisp]

233. omg lol. you forgot the thumb drive stuck up his ass...

or am I misremembering what the caption was?

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. See #53 above (nt)

[SomethingFishy]

44. So are we going to war with Australia? Or Indonesia?

Or are we going to help Australia defend themselves from an Indonesian attack.. What a bunch of paranoid bullshit.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. War? Australia?

[MindMover]

70. I think we have already chosen sides ....

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131203/NEWS/312030026/Marine-Corps-identifies-1-100-man-infantry-unit-next-Australia-rotation

[freshwest]

270. Yes, plenty of opportunities in Aussieland. They've been hiring Americans since last year, IIRC.

The Australian government is fulfilling their part of the ANZUS Pact which is the Australian, New Zealand and United States military alliance.

Australia and NZ are both both 'contact' countries witn NATO nations. But not a part of NATO.

AUSCANNZUKUS stands for a strategic alliance of the countries that can be easily made out from that acronym. There are some bilateral agreements

Australia is also part of the Five Eyes watch the world from post-WW2 agreement. Yes, it means that, they watch each other and for each other.



The United Kingdom – United States of America Agreement (UKUSA, /juːkuːˈsɑː/ ew-koo-SAH)[1][2] is a multilateral agreement for cooperation in signals intelligence between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The alliance of intelligence operations is also known as Five Eyes.[3][4][5][6][7] In classification markings this is abbreviated as FVEY or the countries are listed like AUS, CAN, GBR, NZL, USA.[8]

Emerging from an informal agreement related to the 1941 Atlantic Charter, the secret treaty was renewed with the passage of the 1943 BRUSA Agreement, before being officially enacted on 5 March 1946 by the United Kingdom and the United States. In the following years, it was extended to encompass Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Other countries, known as "third parties", such as West Germany, the Philippines and several Scandinavian countries also joined the UKUSA community.[9]

Much of the sharing of information is performed via the ultra-sensitive STONEGHOST network, which contains "the Western world's most closely guarded secrets".[10] Besides laying down rules for intelligence sharing, the agreement formalized and cemented the "Special Relationship" between the UK and the USA.[11][12]

Due to its status as a secret treaty, its existence was not known to the Prime Minister of Australia until 1973,[13] and it was not disclosed to the public until 2005.[12] On 25 June 2010, for the first time in history, the full text of the agreement was publicly released by Britain and the United States, and can now be viewed online.[9][14] Shortly after its release, the seven-page UKUSA Agreement was recognized by Time magazine as one of the Cold War's most important documents, with immense historical significance.[12]

Currently, the global surveillance disclosure by Edward Snowden has shown that the intelligence-sharing activities between the First World allies of the Cold War are rapidly shifting into the digital realm of the World Wide Web.[15][16][17]

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

More on the scope of the legal survelliance in the treaty is at the link. This may be an economic move to destabilize the Anglosphere. It's not about our rights as USA citizens. It's been going on for many, many years

Australia's duty under the pact is to watch South Asia and East Asia with the technology that we all know about which has been in place for years, only now expanding to be accessed on the world wide web.

Indonesia is not part of the treaty. Some may have forgotten or never known that Australia joined the Allied forces in WW2 in the Pacific, Vietnam, as well as in Iraq.

The chances that the Anglosphere is going to shuffle off into history ares slim; but it's likely that certain entities and outside alliances arrayed against it would love to spark trouble and remake the world order. There has been a push from Russia, China and other Asian allies to push the USA out of the trading there. It's about the money, not hurt feelings on anyone's part.

This is a continuing thing that is older than we are and will probably outlive us, but some would profit by it and are working on it every day.

HOWEVER, despite the article's contention this may lead to something drastic, I believe it will only lead to difficulty. And that cooler heads WILL prevail and there will be no war between Australia and Indonesia. There are also many business operations out of Australia there, and they aren't going to risk losing them.

JMHO.

[Fumesucker]

49. The Australian Spying That Might Start a War

There, I put an honest title on the piece for you.

[WillyT]

55. Not Widely Reported In The United States Was That We Were LIED Into A War With Iraq...

That killed more Americans than died on 9/11 (even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Not widely reported in the United States were the war crimes committed in Iraq by the United States.

Food for thought...

[MannyGoldstein]

68. This is why secrecy's so critical.

If Bush had done a better job of keeping secrets, we wouldn't know we were lied into that war.

[WillyT]

79. Good Point...

[Turbineguy]

62. At least Snowden will get some attention.

Sure, thousands may die.

[freshwest]

273. On the bonfire of the vanities of media. I keep thinking of that Bond flick with the Murdoch type

who was trying to start a war between China and the UK for ratings.

This is what these media divas always make me think of...

[Union Scribe]

71. zomg Snowden is going to kills us alllll!

Thanks a lot comrade Eddie! And so on.

[Politicub]

72. Good, bad or indifferent

The Snowden revelations will reverberate for years.

[blackspade]

74. Hyperbolic bullshit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Simple remedy. Stop spying. Which is what all the kerfluffle is about, not Snowden's revelations.

Just as the Vietnam war was the problem, not Ellsberg's revelations of it.

[Cali_Democrat]

84. So all countries to cease the practice of espionage against other countries?

Espionage has been around for centuries.

It would be interesting if all countries just stopped it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. I agree. Interesting to see a step towards peace.

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Albert Einstein

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
Albert Einstein

[Cali_Democrat]

87. What would be the mechanism for enforcement?

Numerous countries from China to Japan to Russia and France engage in espionage and have for a long long time.

What would be the mechanism of enforcement and verification? How can we be sure if all countries are in compliance?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

128. Well, if nobody's spying, we wouldn't.

Kinda like in a family where we don't know if Uncle Bob is spying on Aunt Tilly who may be spying on Cousin Melba whose only spying Uncle Bob to see if he's spying on Aunt Tilly.

[Cali_Democrat]

143. Yes, but is it possible to get all all countries in the world to stop spying?

BTW, espionage has actually been going on for centuries. How do we suddenly get countries to stop? How do we enforce it?

[SomethingFishy]

145. You don't.

But getting mad at the guy who tells you about it seems kind of stupid and pointless.

It also seems hypocritical to call him a criminal if we all knew this has been going on for centuries.

[HangOnKids]

196. Blamo

Do you think we will get a reply?

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. Yeah like thats going to happen....good luck!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

138. Certainly won't happen if we allow the likes of the NSA to continue.

Kinda like saying that the Taliban tortures so we should torture.

[frwrfpos]

94. is a woman is raped, and there is a person that witnesses it

and comes forward, would you be angry at the rapist or the person who came forward?


Those that get angry at the witness for coming forward have some serious;y disturbing issues and I find to have little credibility.




Think about that for a minute and what side you are taking. It reflects poorly . Very poorly

[Thinkingabout]

105. This excuse has been worn out for months. Yes we would report the crime, we would

Also report a theft and espionage. WTH, why should one crime get a pass on reporting a crime. If Snowden had reported what he considered a crime to the proper authorities he would not have fled the US and ended up in Russia. He is in his situation because of himself.

[frwrfpos]

133. but the crime continues and is supported by the likes of you and others that see no issue with it

there has been no theft or espionage, There has been whitleblowing on a crime and you seem to support the criminals. unfortunately it seems, so does Obama. The crime is wrong and those that witness and come forward are the people that should be supported.


Perhaps those that support criminal activity should be ashamed

Those that expose criminal activity, like Snowden are doing the right thing.


I stand with the witness.

It seems, unfortunately , that you stand with the criminals who spy

[Thinkingabout]

140. Based on your reasoning if you saw a crime of someone breaking in and raping someone you

Would gather details, deliver the details to a foreign newspaper and then catch a flight to Hong Kong and then in to Russia? Also you are declaring he did not steal files from NSA? Well if that is the case why would GG be raising hell about a computer being taken and GG has also shared through The Guardian just a bunch of made up crap.

Spend a short time reading the Whistleblower Act and you will soon learn Snowden was exempt from whistle blower protection.

[frwrfpos]

142. If i witnessed a crime I would gather details and expose the criminals

Can you please provide a link that proves he has given anything to Russia or China?


And yes I am declaring he did not steal files from the NSA. He exposed their illegal and criminal activity, as our bought off and corrupt Congress imprisons and silences whistle blowers.

[Thinkingabout]

157. Did I say he had given anything to China or Russia? I said he went to Hong Kong and

Russia. The thief doesn't have files, then again he has lied. You must be reading about a different person than Snowden. You can continue to think he did something good but the question is who did he do good. He is charged with espionage and theft and now you say he doesn't have any files so he has no proof of anything wrong of anything in the NSA.

[frwrfpos]

162. then we both agree he has been falsely charged by the us government

good for you to see the error in your logic.

Im glad you have learned something today. Baby steps.

[Thinkingabout]

163. No, the investigators has determined he has stolen files resulting in charges of

Theft and he revealed information which should not been given outside of the NSA and to people who do not have clearance to have the information. If he wanted to expose operations in the NSA there was a channel for him to do so, he chose to violate our espionage act, there for he is charged with espionage. He made his bed now he has to lie in it.

[frwrfpos]

165. the investigators work for the government that illegally and criminally spied on US citizens

The channel for Snowden to expose those lies and criminality have landed people in jail.

Im so glad we agree that the NSA is corrupt to the core. Thank you for exposing the illegal and criminal acts of the NSA

[Thinkingabout]

168. I have to tell you, your dog don't hunt. Just who does Snowden work?

[frwrfpos]

177. Im so glad we agree that the NSA is corrupt to the core.

Im so glad we agree that the NSA is corrupt to the core. Thank you for exposing the illegal and criminal acts of the NSA

[Thinkingabout]

192. What words did I post which said NSA is corrupt? I did not say nor do I think they are corrupt.

Since you know so much about Snowden answer who does he work? I can see when Supreme Court rules collection of phone call records is not illegal you will post, "See SC agreed with me, NSA is corrupt", your dog don't hunt.

[sheshe2]

176. Obama Signs Whistleblower Protection Bill into Law

President Barack Obama signed new whistleblower protections into law, the White House said Tuesday.

The law, known as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (pdf), expands protections for federal workers who blow the whistle on misconduct, fraud and illegality.

It clarifies the scope of protected disclosures, tightens requirements for non-disclosure agreements, expands penalties for violating protections and adds to the staff of some federal agencies an ombudsman whose job will be to educate agency employees of their rights, a statement said.

The bill passed the Senate two weeks ago by unanimous consent after the House passed it in September during a pro-forma session.

http://blogs.wsj.com/corruption-currents/2012/11/27/obama-signs-whistleblower-protection-bill-into-law/

He had avenues to pursue, he did not have to run and leak.

[Thinkingabout]

194. Exactly, many have worked under a non disclosure, our education was a once a year review.

When employees has access to sensitive information such as credit card numbers and other personal information it is not something we need a rogue employee to take and share with whomever they please. This is a no brainer.

It was a plan from the beginning, just to start crap where crap is not needed. When this first came out it was they were listening to every phone call, who cares what you are talking to your family and friends unless there is suspicion of crimes, etc occurring. Well, that was wrong. Some of the other statements did not make any sense. It has been used to get crap on President Obama.

[cui bono]

310. Obama Whistleblower Prosecutions Lead To Chilling Effect On Press

Go here for a free DVD of The War on Whistleblowers: http://www.waronwhistleblowers.com/

Obama Whistleblower Prosecutions Lead To Chilling Effect On Press

It was an investigative story clearly in the public interest, shedding new light on the government’s long-running targeted-killing program in Pakistan. But now Landay, a veteran national security reporter for the McClatchy newspaper chain, is concerned that the Obama administration could next investigate him in hopes of finding the sources for “top-secret U.S. intelligence reports” cited in the story. “Do I think that they could come after me?” Landay asked, in an interview with The Huffington Post. “Yes.”

“I can tell you that people who normally would meet with me, sort of in a more relaxed atmosphere, are on pins and needles,” Landay said of the reporting climate during the Obama years, a period of unprecedented whistleblower prosecutions. The crackdown on leaks, he added, seems “deliberately intended to have a chilling effect.”

Landay isn’t alone in that assessment, as several investigative journalists attest in “War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State,” a timely documentary directed by Robert Greenwald of Brave New Foundation that premieres this week in New York and Washington. The film details the ordeals of four whistleblowers who turned to the press in order to expose waste or illegality.

“The Obama administration's been extremely aggressive in trying to root out whistleblowers within the government,” NBC News investigative reporter Michael Isikoff says in the film. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, describing the secrecy required in her reporting for a profile of whistleblower Thomas Drake amid government prosecution, said the experience didn’t “feel [like] America, land of the free press.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/obama-whistleblower-prosecutions-press_n_3091137.html

Obama’s crackdown views leaks as aiding enemies of U.S.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/20/194513/obamas-crackdown-views-leaks-as.html#.UfKMrLuYYhJ

'Reporter's Privilege' Under Fire From Obama Administration Amid Broader War On Leaks

Posted: 05/18/2012 3:48 pm EDT | Updated: 05/18/2012 6:58 pm EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/reporters-privilege-obama-war-leaks-new-york-times_n_1527748.html

Obama's War on Whistleblowers
The president has been accused of allowing the Stuxnet leaks to help in the election, but his overarching policy has been extraordinarily tough on whistleblowing.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones

Going Through the ‘Proper Channels’ to Blow the Whistle on Secret Surveillance Programs

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/16/going-through-the-proper-channels-to-blow-the-whistle-on-secret-surveillance-programs/

Obama Promises, Including Whistleblower Protections, Disappear From Website

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/obama-whistleblower-website_n_3658815.html

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. false analogy....

not a comparison at all...


pfffft....just like all Libertarian ideals..not attached to reality...

[frwrfpos]

139. spying illegally on Americans is illegal. Rape is illegal

Can you help me out as to your "version" of logic?

[sheshe2]

155. I am appalled that you would have the audacity to compare Eddies leaking documents

as being the "witness to a crime" to the rape of a woman, with a witness coming forward!

That is contemptable.

Think about that for a minute and what side you are taking. It reflects poorly . Very poorly

Yes, let's turn that around, what side are you on exactly?

[frwrfpos]

159. its called whistleblowing on criminal activity

perhaps you are not aquainted with exposing criminal activity by the nsa?

Eddies? Are you also concerned with pole dancing and boxes?


Do tell us "sheshe2"

[sheshe2]

164. Actually no I am not concerned with pole dancing and boxes...

never posted any of that. Why are you?

And why are you attacking me on things I never said.

However I find your rape reference offensive and completely out of place in this thread.

Do tell frwrfpos...hey do I know you?

[frwrfpos]

167. dont know

do you work for a particular spy illegally agency?

how would you know me?

[sheshe2]

171. have you been here before?

[frwrfpos]

174. have you?

are you threatening me as a new member?

[sheshe2]

178. not at all ...

sorry if I have been remiss welcoming you to DU~

have fun...

[HangOnKids]

197. It Is clear she is

Her mea culpa post is quite telling.

[sheshe2]

249. Wrong...

[HangOnKids]

254. Because you say so?

Take a hike. Really take a hike she.

[sheshe2]

255. Since I know myself better than you, yes because I said so.

Wow are you threatening me? Take a hike? Are you telling me to leave?

You could have said, "that's it goodnight". Not you HangOnKids, you told me to take a hike. Wow!

[HangOnKids]

259. Hysterical much?

You might need a walk dear.

[sheshe2]

263. Hysterical much?

Real cute reply, HangOnKids....would have expected it from a teaparty member not from another woman.

Gotta go the President is on.

See ya~

[William769]

264. Nice try.

But truth won out.

[sheshe2]

276. Hey!

Did I miss the fireworks, William~

[William769]

277. Naw, I'm just giving some of my southern charm that I'm known to be famous for.

[Cha]

170. Eddie is not a "whistleblower"..

And, no I don't give a shit about his boxes or his girlfriend.

There Is No Justification For Edward Snowden's Latest Leaks

"..But as time goes on, Snowden's leaks have increasingly related to international spying and other legitimate actions of the U.S. government, which he has neither legal nor moral justification for exposing

Snowden's leaks include outing NSA foreign surveillance targets to the Brazilian government, the German government, the U.N., and even the Chinese government. Just this week reports came out that the NSA had targeted Indian diplomats for spying at their Embassy in D.C. and in New York City.

Even Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the Snowden saga, said that he would not have published those Chinese addresses.

"What motivated that leak though was a need to ingratiate himself to the people of Hong Kong and China,” Greenwald told The Daily Beast."

http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-is-not-a-whistleblower-2013-9

"Even greenwald".. Snowden's a hack drunk on his own ego.. Started pushing Propaganda the moment he got to Russia.

Snowden the "ingratiator"..

"These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations." .. Eddie Propaganda artist

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

[brush]

179. Go get 'em, Cha

Snowden stepped way over the line with the international revelations but the Snowden apologists can't seem to understand that revealing NSA domestic info gathering overreach is an entirely different issue than revealing intricate details of our, and other nation's international covert operations.

I for one don't think that a somewhat naive — and quite possible narcissistic — 29-year-old should be the one making the decisions to revealed what other nation's covert operations are.

[Cha]

180. Excellent analysis, brush..

"I for one don't think that a somewhat naive — and quite possible narcissistic — 29-year-old should be the one making the decisions to revealed what other nation's covert operations are."

I'm going to go with "narcissistic" from what I've seen of young Eddie.. and not shy about lying his head off and spewing the most inane accusations up there on his perch.

It's not brain surgery..

"Snowden stepped way over the line with the international revelations but the Snowden apologists can't seem to understand that revealing NSA domestic info gathering overreach is an entirely different issue than revealing intricate details of our, and other nation's international covert operations."

[Ed Suspicious]

185. More Eddie, huh. Reminds me of when Freeper types refer to the President by his middle name.

[Cha]

187. Sorry, you don't like Edward Snowden being refered to as Eddie.. but, that

doesn't change what Eddie is.. the self-serving Ingratiator who spews Propaganda from Russia and leaks "revealing intricate details of our, and other nation's international covert operations."

Signed Cha Hussein Harmon

[HangOnKids]

200. You work for the State Department now Cha?

Have ALL secret information and can post it on DU with IMPUNITY? Jebus what a gal.

[D23MIURG23]

267. Results of jury review:

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing about this particular post is over the line. I have no basis to judge "trolling".

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This person keeps trolling Cha and sheshe2. Please hide & let this person know that this is not OK on DU.

-------------------

Just thought you might like to know.

[HangOnKids]

268. Ha Ha Ha!

Thank you that was a classic! Made my night.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

286. Wow, a clean sweep.

Go, you!

[freshwest]

281. That fits the definition, doesn't it?

Venality:

1. The quality or fact of being for sale.

2. The quality of being venal; readiness to give support or favour in return for profit or reward; prostitution of talents or principles for mercenary considerations.

~ Oxford English Dictionary

He was hired to protect data, stole it and used it to protect himself. By GG's own words, it would appear he sold it to the Chinese and Russians, or anyone he thought would advantage him. He didn't care what they did with it, giving it to nations with a poor record of respecting human rights within their own borders. This is not the act of a hero, unless one is a Libertarian and sees this as advancing the candidacy of Rand Paul. Because that's all that it's being used for now.

[Cha]

282. ES.. the venal

ingratiator.

Thanks fresh~

[freshwest]

284. Hey, we didn't say it first. GG did. Truth will out. I'm not mad, just sad that this is what is now

considered admirable. I would not like to be in his circle of friends. I'll leave it at that.

[cui bono]

288. Of course he is a whistleblower. And he will always be a whistleblower in this case

no matter how many times the blind defenders of spying on US citizens proclaim he isn't.

Why are you on a Democratic board if you are okay with BushCo spying policy on steroids?

[Marr]

95. Authoritarians never, ever blame the authority.

The fault lies with the person who points out authority's wrongdoing, never the authority.

[sheshe2]

250. So Marr...where are all those links

Where you accused me of...

Marr (15,247 posts)
91. You showed no respect for Manning when she was in the news, prior to conviction.

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2014, 07:52 PM - Edit history (3)

I think the fact is that you're ok with one and not the other simply because one is still making Barrack Obama's administration look bad, and the other is not. It would be a waste of ammunition to keep slinging shit at Manning.

[Marr]

256. Well, here's one that took about 1 minute to find.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/10023516460

Is that not your name I see on the rec list?

Just to be clear up front, is it your contention that you didn't recommend other threads like that one?

[sheshe2]

262. about to watch Sotu...so this is fast...

Did you bother to read the article?

Snip

And while I sympathize with his struggles, that doesn’t excuse his actions. I think that’s something some of his supporters seem to confuse. They read the story about a bullied gay man, who struggled with acceptance in society (and the military) and empathize with his life story. And while I’m an avid supporter of LGBT rights, that doesn’t impact my views on why I oppose his actions...

Seeing the pieces of information he exposed, it’s easy to hold him up as a hero because some of it was horrific, and controversial, behavior by our government. But those that do so ignore the dangers of someone in our military, with access to classified information, during a time of war, deployed to war, leaking information that could compromise the lives of our brave men and women serving overseas.

snip

What if you had a loved one serving in the military, and the classified information he recklessly leaked out brought about a response from our enemies that resulted in your loved ones death?

It’s easy to dismiss this “what if” question because anyone can play that game with almost any scenario in life. But most who dismiss the question simply don’t want to answer it because they know their feelings about Mr. Manning would change.

Seeing the pieces of information he exposed, it’s easy to hold him up as a hero because some of it was horrific, and controversial, behavior by our government. But those that do so ignore the dangers of someone in our military, with access to classified information, during a time of war, deployed to war, leaking information that could compromise the lives of our brave men and women serving overseas.

I’m sorry, I just don’t have sympathy for someone who does that.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/like-it-or-not-bradley-manning-is-a-traitor-not-a-hero/

that is not disrespecting Manning, disagreeing with what he did is not disrespect, Marr. Read the article I rec'd!

Gotta run~

[neverforget]

265. Ah yeah the poster that promoted that trash the Left website ThePeoplesView.

Those were some nasty threads.

[Cha]

101. Thank you for this invaluable information via Bob Cesca, she..

From you link..

"Australian prime minister Tony Abbott was elected last year on a platform that included a promise to crack down on the people-smuggling issue. Meanwhile, Indonesia had been working with Australia to curb the problem.

As a consequence of the MacAskill/Snowden news, however, National Police Chief General Sutarman announced that Indonesia would no longer help Australia turn the boats around, further exacerbating a seriously low ebb in diplomatic relations between the two nations.

It gets worse."

Snowden doesn't care about anything but Snowden and when does he get to send out his next propaganda missive. Bill Maher was spot on about Edward Snowden.. “every time he opens his mouth, he always says something f*cking nuts.”

Stupid missive from Snowden..

July 2013

"These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations." .. Eddie Propaganda artist

http://wikileaks.org/Statement-by-Edward-Snowden-to.html

Now he's whining the US wants assassinate him.. any yet "they're not afraid of him .. they're afraid of us."

Fucking propaganda spewer hiding behind putie's pants.

Still think NSA-leaker Edward Snowden is a hero?

"According to a new story in the Guardian, Snowden is now leaking documents showing that in 2009 the United States intercepted communications from then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who was attending the G20 Summit in London.

The leak from Snowden comes only one day before President Obama is to meet with Russian President Putin at the G8 summit."



Americablog

clemency?.. AG Holder say "no". And, that will stand unless someone stupid gets in charge like rand paul who assange thinks would be "good for America". I wonder why?

[sheshe2]

109. Great Links!

You came armed for bear Cha!

"These nations, including Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Ecuador have my gratitude and respect for being the first to stand against human rights violations." .. Eddie Propaganda artist

Yup, dumping docs and possibly endangering National Security is okay! The man that ran is Okay. Only the NSA is bad, which has been around since 1917. Obama bad, got that too!

Army predecessor

The origins of the National Security Agency can be traced back to April 28, 1917, three weeks after the U.S. Congress declared war on Germany in World War I. A code and cipher decryption unit was established as the Cable and Telegraph Section which was also known as the Cipher Bureau and Military Intelligence Branch, Section 8 (MI-8). It was headquartered in Washington, D.C. and was part of the war effort under the executive branch without direct Congressional authorization. During the course of the war it was relocated in the army's organizational chart several times. On July 5, 1917, Herbert O. Yardley was assigned to head the unit. At that point, the unit consisted of Yardley and two civilian clerks. It absorbed the navy's cryptoanalysis functions in July 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, and MI-8 moved to New York City on May 20, 1919, where it continued intelligence activities as the Code Compilation Company under the direction of Yardley.

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

Thanks Cha!

[Cha]

148. Loaded for bear!

she

http://www.polarbearendangered.com/cute-polar-bear/

Edward Snowden is a coward.. he sneaks off like a thief in the night; subsequently dumping thousands of documents indiscriminately.. not giving a shit who he's hurting. Makes sure it's all about him with his "fuckin' nuts" propaganda behind the safe confines of Russian soil.



He thinks he's better than Chelsea Manning.. he doesn't want to stand up for his crime..



Thanks for the history on NSA, she. It's been going on for a long time and then came the bush-cheney Patriot Act.. But, the republicons are now whining about Obama, too( but say nothing about their implementing said Patriot Act). Time for the gop to jump on the anti-Obama NSA Gravy Train with rand paul, glenn greenwald(there's books to be sold! ), and asshat from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, etc etc etc.

[treestar]

118. Interesting thought

some just want to use it to make the US look bad - and ignore that others spy, too.

[morningfog]

120. Unmitigated bullshit. Australia wants to scape goat Snowden for their impropriety.

[Scuba]

141. So it's revealing the wrongdoing that's the problem? That's bullshit.

[moondust]

146. Responsible custody of sensitive information

is the job of anyone who has access to it no matter what one's opinion of the information itself or how it came into existence.

If "uncle-killer" Kim Jong-un finds out from a document leak that Japan has been doing something he doesn't like and he goes nuts and starts lobbing missiles at Japan, whoever leaked that information shares the blame for getting that whole thing started.

I'm not sure Snowden and Greenwald realize this.

[defacto7]

150. As usual, the moment Snowden and leaking arises,

what surfaces as the ultimate and most important question is "blame"; who/what is to blame?. That old and over exercised, redundant question will be answered one way or another but of what use is it? Does every issue begin and end with a legal box? I'm sure blame is the most entertaining and creates the most waves but is that all that matters? Why don't we start asking the question, "What is the smartest or stupidest move and who stands to gain or loose from it?".

Whether the man, the act or the spies are to blame is trite. Whether acts by either side in question have caused transparency or opacity is a really important point that could drive the politics. Whether putting lives in danger is worth unfettered transparency is a grave issue that needs answering. Whether the status quo is more important than a completely open box is another big issue. Where are the diplomatic lines going to be drawn where governments have to make decisions that effect the planet? Are they only valuable if there is complete transparency or is there some point where there is a closed door?

I believe this is a central fact we face: There will be no more concealable information in the world. We can encrypt to hell but information will flow. That is a huge lesson we have all learned from this. So, what are the rules of the game now? Fuck blame.

[backscatter712]

188. How much does HBGary pay you to spew this horseshit?

[sheshe2]

190. Cute~

[Cha]

199. Just like back

during the bush-cheney coup when Barbra Streisand was speaking out against the war on Iraq.. McCain was spewing that she should stick to singing and they would take care of the politics. I was so pissed that he would say something so stupid to her.. I wrote her a letter and she didn't have email.. it was snail mail.

She wrote back to me that they can't handle the message so they try and smear the messenger. Poor little ol Barbra Streisand should stick to singing.. brawaaaaaaa and McCain would take care of the big boy business of killing.

They can't address the content of your OP so they try and smear their "horseshit" meme. How's that workin' out? rofl

[Dash87]

208. It's more like, "How much ad money did The Daily Bullcrap make from obvious click bait?"

These are easy to spot because their title is hyperbolic bullshit, and every sentence in the article contains "may" or "could."

[TheKentuckian]

189. "You broke up my marriage, telling my wife I was fucking your wife"

"No, you broke up your marriage by fucking around with my wife".

[anti partisan]

198. Good analogy, except the consequence isn't near as drastic (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

201. The logic is the same regardless of scale.

[anti partisan]

203. Not trying to criticize the logic. My bad. (nt)

[anti partisan]

195. I looked in Webster's for "grasping at straws" and came up with this article

This isn't going to start a war. The author knows that. Spying happens and everyone knows that spying happens. The only ones actively trying to start a war are classless authors like this guy trying to manufacture a rift between two countries in order to make a critic of the Obama admin look bad. Is Bob Cesca really going to start a war? No, but neither will the revelations.

The whole premise of this article doesn't warrant serious discussion. If you really would like to think that there will be a "shooting war at sea" as a result of Snowden, please feel free to make your case.

[Dash87]

207. A war? Really?

Obvious clickbait is obvious. Tune in next week for Bob Cesca's, "How Snowden's revelations will cause the world powers the launch all of their nukes at once!"

[AgingAmerican]

272. There will be no war

Strawmen don't make good combatants.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

221. It's funny that those who condemn Daniel Ellsberg...

(some going so far as to suggest he is senile) throw their support behind some lightweight like Bob Cesca, who got his start on the idiotic Don & Mike Show.

But it warms the cockles of my DU heart to see his nonsense chewed up and spit out, just like with Spamdan.

[Rex]

239. And it is the same people pushing the same FUD here over and over.

Which is why they only have credibility between 5 or 6 people. The rest of us rip through the propaganda like it was wet paper.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

242. Well, I'll give them an "A" for persistence, but beyond that...

I'd wager they're not changing any hearts and minds. DUers as a whole have finely honed bullshit detectors (WMDs, anyone?). But at least we can enjoy their cute polar bear pics. Go Polar Bears!

[Rex]

243. Well we became very skeptical under the BFEE years, while some came to love the BFEE years.

It is easy to see who is who on DU.

[Number23]

248. None of this is news to anyone that has stepped more than eight feet outside of the US border

which is why it is news or so easily dismissed by many here. Only on DU is Snowden the object of so much adoration. I've not come across a country yet that had support for him higher than the low 50's.

Australia's Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, on Edward Snowden:

He "continues to shamefully betray his nation while skulking in Russia", Ms Bishop said.

"This represents unprecedented treachery. He is no hero.

"I am surprised that any responsible entity or organisation or people could label him as some kind of hero.

"This is unprecedented treachery." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/bishop-says-us-australia-intelligence-vital2c-accuses-snowden-/5214282

This is not someone that I agree with on many things (truly an understatement) but on this comment, she is spot on. And the rest of that article as well as countless others corroborate what Cesca is saying here.

[sheshe2]

253. Thanks Number23...

I do not understand the unwavering adoration of Snowden, especially here at DU.

[neverforget]

266. FYI the ruling party of Australia is conservative.

Of course they would say that.

[Number23]

285. FYI there is no "ruling" party in Australia

And I've yet to hear a politician on EITHER side of the aisle with anything good to say about the man.

[anti partisan]

311. Welcome to Politics 101

Of course Australian politicians aren't going to say anything positive about an American who exposed their dirty secrets.

What is your point again?

[Number23]

314. If you're going to insert yourself into a conversation, you could at least keep up with it

A subthread with three posts in it and you appear to already be confused.

And I thought Snowden was so revered because he was holding the US government accountable? So now it's okay that he's inserting himself into the goings on of foreign governments that are friends with America?

[anti partisan]

315. Blah blah blah. So what's your point?

If I was Snowden, I personally would've only leaked the stuff about the US government spying on its own citizens. But in totality, I guess it isn't bad that people know more about spying that's going on.

[Number23]

316. Again, if you're going to LEAP ass first into a conversation, at least try to keep up with it

Blah blah blah. So what's your point?

[anti partisan]

317. You're not making a point, and then personally attacking to divert that question

I'm done with this. You can have your conversation back.