Why did it take a Democratic administration for Snowden to become a dissident?

[YoungDemCA]

Like many on this site, I sympathize with opposition to the increased power of the surveillance state. And I, also like many on here, initially thought that Snowden "did the right thing."

But the more I read about Snowden, the more I am suspicious of him, his motivations, and his rationale for leaking classified information.

For example:

Snowden may have leaned libertarian on some issues, but he also exhibited strong support for America's security state apparatus. He didn't just work for it as a quiet dissident. Four years before he would leak the country's secrets, Snowden was cheering its actions and insisting that it needed healthy funding. To anyone who questioned US actions in his favored online hangout, he could be derisive.

Livid about the across-the-board defense cuts that were planned under Obama, Snowden acidly joked that "[m]aybe we could just outsource our defense needs to india."

Worse yet, during a remarkable January 2009 chat, Snowden wrote that Obama had "appointed a fucking politician to run the CIA." In that same conversation, he vented his rage over reading a New York Times article about US actions in Iran, which was based on confidential leaks.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/3/

And this:

Snowden has traced his political conversion to the Bush years. And by the end of Bush’s second term, Snowden certainly held the president in low esteem. But not, apparently, his intelligence policies. Nor, it seems, was he drawn to insiders who exposed details of these programs. Quite the opposite: Snowden vilified leakers and defended covert intelligence ops. In January 2009, Snowden lambasted The New York Times and its anonymous sources for exposing a secret Bush administration operation to sabotage Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Such infuriating breaches had occurred “over and over and over again,” Snowden complained. The Times, he railed, was “like wikileaks” and deserved to go bankrupt; sources who leaked “classified shit” to the Times ought to “be shot in the balls.” When an online interlocutor suggested that it might be “ethical” to report “on the government’s intrigue,” Snowden replied emphatically: “VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? No.” He explained, “that shit is classified for a reason.”

And nearly as soon as Obama took office, Snowden developed a deep aversion to the new president. TheTrueHOOHA reacted furiously when Obama named Leon Panetta as his new director of central intelligence. But it was Panetta’s credentials he objected to, not his stance on surveillance matters. “Obama just named a fucking politician to run the CIA,” Snowden erupted. And he became furious about Obama’s domestic policies on a variety of fronts. For example, he was offended by the possibility that the new president would revive a ban on assault weapons. “See, that’s why I’m goddamned glad for the second amendment,” Snowden wrote, in another chat. “Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished.”

snip:

At the time the stimulus bill was being debated, Snowden also condemned Obama’s economic policies as part of a deliberate scheme “to devalue the currency absolutely as fast as theoretically possible.” (He favored Ron Paul’s call for the United States to return to the gold standard.) The social dislocations of the financial collapse bothered him not at all. “Almost everyone was self-employed prior to 1900,” he asserted. “Why is 12% employment [sic] so terrifying?” In another chat-room exchange, Snowden debated the merits of Social Security:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe

Why does this matter? It's about the message, not the messengers, right? Well, the message is one of cynical Libertarianism....so I don't think that a Democratic board should be so quick to associate with such a message.

YMMV.

[baldguy]

1. The NSA's activities only became problematic when that black guy got into office.

And to think this racist, RW libertarian gun nut has become a hero for some on DU....

[NuclearDem]

5. For the quadrillionth time

He didn't work for the NSA until 2009.

[Marr]

103. There you go again, with that racist, linear interpretation of time.

Admit it. You never have/will/will have/are loved him.

[MADem]

167. Not true. He worked for them after leaving the Army in 2004. See post 163. nt

[NuclearDem]

176. As a security guard at the NSA's version of DLI.

Not in an IT setting.

[MADem]

180. And you know that's all he did, because he's your best friend?

It's entirely unclear how Snowden got the "work experience" to qualify to apply as a sysadmin working for CIA in Switzerland, but it's unlikely that CIA snapped him up because he was such a swell "security guard."

It is far more likely that he was hired as a security guard initially, and fleeted up to a very junior IT position in his first gig, which qualified him for the CIA job.

[NuclearDem]

184. Even if that's true

The NSA compartmentalizes their information. A junior IT guy at the language school would have access to computer systems used at the language school, not the details of the surveillance programs.

[MADem]

194. A junior CIA sysadmin needs two things.

The first is qualified work experience, which I suspect he got at his first NSA job, even if he 'started out' as a security guard. The second is a clearance, which he got via his ENTNAC and NAC during his abortive Army career, and later, from USIS, which dropped the ball and gundecked key aspects of his vetting--the most important of which was his education credentials.

That failure to properly vet put Snowden in the catbird seat for a decade, but that eventually caught up with him, I believe, when he was re-vetted after being hired at BAH and his bona fides didn't match up with the fiction he put on his SF86--and that, I think, is why he ran when he did.

[NuclearDem]

197. We're getting off track here.

The whole original point was "why wait until now to leak the documents?"

He couldn't have leaked anything about NSA surveillance until his IT contract work with the NSA began in 2009. Even if he did IT work with the NSA at the language school (and you have provided nothing but baseless speculation on that, no actual evidence), he couldn't have had access to the NSA's surveillance information because the NSA compartmentalizes its information.

[MADem]

208. Well, as I mentioned in another post, his SF86 anniversary had arrived.

His first full clearance was gundecked by USIS. They likely never checked his educational qualifications (probably because he had an off-the-charts ASVAB score...how many dropouts are CAT I's?). The ENTNAC would have turned up any criminal activity and maybe even credit problems, and that came back clean. So what, really, was there to check on a young guy like that, save his addresses and education? Had they so done the first time around, he wouldn't have ever gotten that job at NSA in MD in the first place--he would have been ID'd as a liar.

His second one came due while he was reporting aboard to BAH. He knew it was only a matter of time before he was found out, and that would be the end of him--he would have been tossed out on his ass and it would have been a tough trick to find lucrative, six figure employment without a clearance. Those clearances are worth their weight in gold!

Information is worth something---and he's got a lot of it. It can be sold, doled out in dribs and drabs, or even held for ransom. Who knows what's happening in that regard out of sight of the curious?

It will be interesting to see if Snowden gets any of that big money coming to Greenwald as a result of Greenwald's new alliance with that Paypal guy, or if he goes under the bus...time will tell.

FWIW, my speculation is not "baseless." If someone goes into a bakery and comes out with a box, it's logical to infer that there are baked goods, not crescent wrenches, in that box. Now, it's entirely possible that the CIA hired a very youthful security guard to do sysadmin work in Switzerland for them, but how likely is it? Why not hire a lunch lady from Dam Neck? Snowden acquired experience--likely compelling, praiseworthy experience-- to qualify him for that job, and it is likely that he acquired it while working for NSA in MD.

Time will reveal all, eventually, I suspect.

All I know for certain is that, down the years, I have found that things are often not quite what they seem.

[AnalystInParadise]

289. You keep saying that

and I am trying to be polite and civil, but you have no idea how easy it is to get these jobs IF you have the clearance. You don't need any other skills at all. I was an instructor at the 35F course at Fort Huachuca for a number of years. One of my former students is a smart young woman but she has zero experience in the IC. She was in the National Guard in Oklahoma in a Combat Sustainment Unit. She has never deployed, and she hurt her back at a training event. She was medically discharged from the Army after exactly 2 years in the Guard. She was not even an NCO. What she did have was a Master's degree in English, a TS/SCI clearance and a charming personality and intellect. She is currently working for Booz Allen (same company as snowden) as a deputy Cyber intelligence manager in San Antonio. That is a job that is usually assigned to someone with 15-20 years experience. Not 2..............She interviewed well and was available immediately, that was why she got the job. They had a contract that needed filling or the contractor company was going to lose their slots. So they hired well below the experience level required to keep the money. It stuns me that people aren't aware of this, the IC hires people like this all the time. No one ounce of experience, but if it helps the contractor keep the money they will hire you. Hell you want to see a train wreck, look at the JIEDDO contract for Afghanistan, they were hiring ex soldiers with less than 4 years experience to defeat the IED threat in Afghanistan. A lot of good people were killed because Raytheon wanted their cut. Snowden was hired because he was right place, right time, I doubt he had anything resembling the skills they needed.

[MADem]

299. OK, look at what you just wrote.

2 Years in the Guard (so long as the discharge isn't general or OTH, that is an indicator of reliability);

**A frigging MASTER's degree (indicative of stick-to-it-iveness, beyond an associates or bachelors, to the graduate school level, and a fair share of brains, an ability to retain and regurgitate as well as formulate opinions after careful study and draw conclusions);

**Charming personality and intellect (an ability to 'sell'--either a product or one's capabilities, and the brains to carry through).

She wasn't a "security guard" who didn't even finish the courses to get himself a GED, who couldn't produce a high school diploma, never mind an associate's degree.

Snowden didn't get hired on "charm and intellect." He had to have something that put him over the top. He either had "work experience" and a good recommendation, OR he forged a degree and no one checked up on him.

Also, he didn't have a TS clearance as a security guard. I'd bet money on it. If he transitioned to CIA with a TS, he was doing something else. You don't spend that kind of money for a guy who checks ID cards or rattles doorknobs.

People with TS/SCIs are a dime a dozen--it's not like they were terribly difficult to get (most of the people I knew in my uniformed days had one) -- though I wager Snowden has changed that dynamic.

From all reports, Snowden DID have the skills they needed--his co-workers down the years have said as much. I've never believed he was completely incompetent. He may not have been as "genius-y" across the board as some would suggest, but he plainly had talent in some areas. What I have believed is that he has some issues, issues that cause him to want to break into files and steal shit--as he was doing when he got that DEROS letter shortly before he beat feet from CIA in Switzerland and landed at Dell in Japan.

Now, all that said, do I think he dislikes Obama? Hell yeah. Do I think he is a Libertarian, selfish, mean-spirited "fuck 'em all" Paulbot? Absolutely. Do I think he was engaged in creating a "collection" of classified materials, for whatever reasons--a rainy day, perhaps, or maybe he's like that weirdo who was convicted of stealing thousands of books from the public library? Yep. Do I think he would have run like a rabbit had his SF86 not been up for revetting, and had USIS not been under investigation at the time for fraudulent practices, and someone in personnel had advised him that there was a problem (but they hired him anyway and resubmitted the form)? Absolutely NOT.

I think the re-adjudication of the clearance, which he HAD to know was coming once he was advised there were issues with the education part of his resume, is what set this whole mess in motion when it happened. The speed with which he gathered his stuff up and ran, with a stupid and half-baked, poorly thought out escape route, to me, suggests that he wasn't prepared. He may have intended to do this all along, but I don't think he intended to do it so soon.

Do I have proof of that being the reason that he ran? Nope. But like the Eight Ball says "Signs Point to Yes."

[AnalystInParadise]

198. Guess again

I was an analyst for my entire career for the Army, never once did Sysadmin work, I was an All Source Analyst, never had Sysadmin rights, never did the job, never once tried to do the job. My first job as a Defense Contractor (current job)? Sysadmin for the DCGS-A program. Granted, I know I am just providing anecdotal evidence and you don't have to believe me, but if you think the IC will only hire people that have the required qualifications, I have oceanfront property in Kentucky to sell you.

[MADem]

200. You weren't a security guard, though, were you?

You worked in the IT sphere.

Thanks for proving my point. And FWIW, I do believe you.

[AnalystInParadise]

202. No I was an analyst

never worked in the IT sphere until now.

[MADem]

214. What sort of analyst?

Tech, intel, humint, something else?

You used a computer in your analyst job, and, from an IT perspective, understood the needs of the "customer," I presume? Or did you just dump your old job, take additional classes/training, and go in a different direction?

[AnalystInParadise]

288. I did none of the above

I am an All Source Analyst (in my case an order of battle analyst). I took no additional classes, received no additional training. I applied for a Sysadmin job because a friend was on the Task Order management side. I did not interview, I did not do any training. Other than a scan of my clearance through JPAS, that was the only scrutiny I received. You would be surprised how often that happens when the IC hires people.

[MADem]

290. You were military, though? With a record of accomplishments?

Mature? Older than 21? Working in a job that required more "smarts" than "security guard?" With an honorable discharge? A full tour under your belt, perhaps even a retirement pension?

I mean, we can play the little "Oh, no one checks anything, nothing to see here, move along" game all day, but if you're trying to convince me that your level of life experience and Snowden's are somehow equivalent, I am not buying that. Sure, Snowden might have made a "friend in the business" over on the CIA side who cut red tape and hired him, but at some point in time he would have had to demonstrate his skillset to this person and the agency. There would have had to have been some sort of proof of capability.

Follow up question--can you do your job? I am not saying this to be insulting, but, do you know what you are doing or are you relying on subordinates to keep you out of trouble? And if you do know your job--and I am assuming you do--how did you acquire those skills and how did you demonstrate to your prospective employers that you possessed them?

[riderinthestorm]

293. Snowden was described by his NSA colleagues as a "genius among geniuses"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024183858

“That kid was a genius among geniuses,” says the NSA staffer. “NSA is full of smart people, but anybody who sat in a meeting with Ed will tell you he was in a class of his own…I’ve never seen anything like it.”


Personally MADem, my dad was the youngest project manager at Bell Labs at 22 years old. Another math prodigy like Snowden, he was picked up during the hey-days of the 1950s, when they were winning Nobel Prizes at Bell Labs, in order to help design and build the first computers and was basically given a top secret clearance right away since they were also involved in military projects. He had absolutely ZERO military experience, no computer design training (but of course who did in the 50s) but nonetheless was hired for one of the biggest projects going at the time because of his brain power.

I have absolutely no doubt that its quite possible a 21 yr old "kid" can be hired in this day and age of technology. I'm staggered at the proficiency of some of the teens I know today. I'm sorry you don't believe that organizations like the NSA don't think "out of the box" when it comes to hiring prodigies like this but I'm certain it happens.

The analyst from the military on this thread has already posted he also personally knows of another 22 year old who got hired without relevant experience either.

It happens. Scoff all you like but there are a few of us with firsthand experience of this happening.

[randome]

296. Snowden was a 'math prodigy'? Where did you come up with that?

The anonymous staffer did not explain what he/she meant. Apparently Snowden did not know that PRISM was a secure FTP server. That does not sound like a 'genius' to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

307. snort... okay. Snowden's own colleagues call him a genius among geniuses

To do anything in the NSA you WILL be math proficient.

I find your quibble over if Snowden is a "math" prodigy or a "computer" prodigy hilarious. My dad was/is a math prodigy but was hired by Bell Labs to design computers because they recognized his cognitive skills were applicable to big projects and concepts. To this day, at age 80, he's both a software and hardware developer. Do you understand how incredible that is? And he's old, way past his prime but completely versatile in both.

Denigrating Snowden's skills says a whole lot more about you than anything else.

You have never worked with/known/managed a guy like Snowden that much is obvious.

Whatever gaps in Snowden's knowledge, for these guys just points a new and joyful pursuit in order to master those concepts. He's so young and however much you want to slam him for not knowing "everything" (I don't care if your slam is correct or not and at this late point in the night I'm unwilling to tackle it), that deficit will be conquered within hours with a mind like that.

If he messed up on a couple things, its a friggin miracle it was only a few things and he's still alive. More than anything that he's gotten away with as much as he has, says a lot about him and his skills.

At 22 my dad had already gotten my mom preggers twice despite trying to figure out birth control. He was an idiot about sex.

So in your world, he's no genius. Okay....

[randome]

308. I am not trying to denigrate Snowden. I'm highlighting what I think are glaring paradoxes.

The man had -and has- no friends. Other than the one or two anonymous staffers who say he was smart without offering any specifics, no one can tell us much of anything about him.

How could you or I possibly think we know Snowden when the very people he worked with did not know him?

But I can speculate as well as anyone else. He is a loner with a suspicious background and the things he 'revealed' were already known to us in general terms. That's enough for me to wonder what the hell he was after in the first place.

And I've been in IT for more than 20 years. I've known my share of layabouts and geniuses.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[riderinthestorm]

315. So you're judging Snowden on some kind of rumoured lack of friends??!!

Really?

These guys don't have "friends" like you or I think of them and you'd know that if you'd ever truly dealt with these guys. They ARE loners because of their intellect. My parents are divorced. I could go chapter and verse about the intimate lives of guys like Snowden since my mother NEVER held back.

And I'm getting a HUGE guffaw about the "suspicious background" thing. My paternal grandfather passed as a white protestant in Canada even after emigrating from Jamaica with a passport that stamped him as a mulatto Jew. My family's genealogy has been posted on DU in the Genealogy threads years ago.

So my dad had many strikes against him - all of which would have been revealed in a security clearance. Yet they still sought him out (and rightly so). He went on to help design the computers and software used in Apollo missions and more

[Recursion]

351. Yeah, I might say that too if somebody used a shareware webcrawler to hack my box

http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/09/snowden-nsa-cheap-software/

But that wouldn't always make it so.

The great hackers (your Mitnicks, etc.) are primarily good at "social engineering". Was Snowden? Quite possibly. Hell, we may even be seeing the evidence of that right on this thread...

[MADem]

312. We aren't talking about the NSA when we talk about how he got there, though.

We are talking about the CIA, which is a hidebound agency that does NOT think out of the box, and after he left NSA (where some insist he never worked during the Bush administration--but he did), he went to CIA. And they sent him to a rather jazzy posting in Switzerland.

It would not surprise me if he started out at NSA as a security guard, showed some proficiency with computers, was given a "fleet up" while working for them, in MD, back in 2004-2006, and used that "work experience" to earn a place with the CIA. From there he was off to the races.

We know he was basically fired from CIA with that derogatory letter in his file, but he managed to get hired by Dell and flitted from Switzerland to Japan without any difficulty. CIA never said anything, though. To anyone. They just left the letter in his personnel jacket, like that helps (not).

By the point in time when he was hired by Booz, he had NSA in MD and CIA in Switzerland and Dell in Japan on his record--so no need for anyone to regard him as "special" or a "whiz kid." He had a credible resume (albeit with "educational discrepancies" up the yin-yan, which were finally noticed--and that, I believe caused him to run).

The analyst on the thread is comparing a woman with an honorable military record (not a recruit training wash-out) of two years, who has a actual, verifiable MASTER's degree, with Snowden--a high school drop out who didn't even finish his courses for his GED--the comparison is just not operative. I discussed this in that subthread.

I have plenty of firsthand experience too--and I know that the CIA (where Snowden was hired in 2004, and where his adventures began in earnest) is a careful, conservative, rather farty agency when it comes to office staff. They can certainly get it wrong (see Ames, Aldrich, as an example) but their people LOOK and ACT the part. And they do have a pecking order.

[riderinthestorm]

324. But by all accounts Snowden is a different animal

Way off the charts.

Queue my dad.

Another anomaly.

Furthermore, I'd stipulate Snowden's actions indicate how far off the rez he is...

There are weirdos in MIC. My dad's a deeply liberal Dem who spent his entire career working on top secret MIC projects who thinks Snowden is off-the-charts great as a whistleblower. Supports him 110%

I have one in my family whose entire career was enmeshed in this stuff. You seem to be limited to believing standard MIC stuff. i happen to know that "the norm" is never normal when dealing with people like Snowden ( or my dad)

[MADem]

334. I will agree that there are all sorts of oddballs in both the MIC in general and Intel.

CIA, though, is, like I said, farty, at least when it comes to their support assets (aka office staff)--and that is what ES was when he was hired on. He wasn't a "secret agent," he was the "computer guy" in Switzerland. He didn't go out on missions, he sat in a heated and cooled office and did what he was told, by a supervisor who plainly should have been watching him more closely, and who eventually fired him.

The government pays me a pension every month--I've been around the track a time or two, I've held a high level clearance; I'm not a naif who acquires my reality from spy novels, like another poster on this thread kept rudely asserting to distract from a paucity of argument.

I do think Snowden is a bit of a liar who likes to puff himself up a bit. He fibbed about his educational credentials, he even fibbed (stupidly, really) to Greenwald about his salary. Anyone who fibs about big things and little things doesn't pass my smell test, so I am not going to believe everything, or even much of anything, he has to say about his duties or experiences without corroboration from people other than anonymous sources.

[Recursion]

186. You're right. Before that he was an actual agent for the CIA, an organization he's said nothing on

except for mentioning that he didn't like how they set up a banker for a DUI in Geneva.



We're being shown exactly what somebody wants us to see.

[AnnieBW]

262. Snowjob worked for the CIA before he worked for NSA

He went into NSA with an insider's view of what to gather.

[underthematrix]

309. Actually, he never worked for the NSA. He worked for a contractor who had a

contract with the NSA.

[MADem]

319. No. He worked for the NSA from 2004 and 2006.

He was, apparently, hired on as a security guard.

Whether or not he stayed in that "security guard" slot is not clear. Perhaps his duties included some responsibilities for the computers in that facility, which wasn't an especially hardened workspace--it was a language training facility.

In any event, in 06, he was hired by the CIA. From there, he went to Dell, and then he went to Booz. Technically, he did work "for" the NSA, but he was never, actually, an NSA asset after he left that job in MD.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. Is it ironic that in your claim that Snowden is racist you yourself just made a racist statement?

[baldguy]

16. That's why it's called "irony".

RWers such as Snowden tend to be unable to recognize it, respond to it appropriately & use it properly.

[Gravitycollapse]

18. I'm saying you just made a racist statement. Which you shouldn't be happy about.

Maybe you misunderstood me.

[baldguy]

24. Maybe you misunderstand the purpose of irony.

Sad that this has to be pointed out to you. On DU especially.

[Gravitycollapse]

29. Is your original post sarcastic? Because, if it was, then I suspect I am wrong.

If it isn't, you're just being intentionally obscure.

[baldguy]

34. Here, this is just for you.

[sabrina 1]

25. You mean you never heard of all the other Whistle Blowers during the Bush years? Where

were you? They were HEROES on the Left when they exposed Bush's gang spying on the American people. Binney, Drake, Tice, any of them ring a bell??

Unbeffingbelievable, that people still think this is about party politics.

We had MORE Whistle Blowers during the Bush years. And WE CHEERED FOR THEM, I thought because we were OPPOSED to violations of the Constitution. Most of those Whistle Blowers were Republicans but we didn't care, we CARED about the Constitution.

What happened? Snowden wasn't working for the NSA during the Bush years, he is fully supported though by all the Whistle Blowers who tried to warn the people about the massive Spying programs of the Bush years.

I don't give a flying fuck who is in power, when the people's rights are violated no one who calls themselves an American Citizen should remain quiet about it.

Snowden is just the latest in a LONG string of people who tried to let the American people, NOT Republican people, NOT Democratic people, but Americans know what their government has been doing.

[Th1onein]

32. Succinct and absolutely correct, as usual, Sabrina 1!

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 06:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Thank you!

[WhiteTara]

55. Too bad this won't lead to the prosecution of *co n.t

[840high]

63. Wish I could Rec your post x100

[WillyT]

68. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. But not Snowden...he thought people like him should have their testicles removed then!

[Marr]

108. He wasn't at the NSA during the Bush years.

Welcome to our dimension, where events "occur" in a specific order, according to something we call "time".

[BlueCaliDem]

139. It goes to credibility.

And Snowden and Greenwald have none. Period.

[NuclearDem]

150. Given the kind of people you consider credible

That might actually be a compliment.

[Marr]

206. How?

He didn't work for Booz Allen during the Bush years. He didn't have access to the information he later leaked during the Bush years.

So tell me, please, how does the fact that Snowden didn't leak information *before he had it* speak to his credibility?

[BlueCaliDem]

357. When it happened under Duhbya, Snowden was vicious

in his remarks that any person who leaks sensitive information to the press in a time of war "should be shot in the balls".

Then a black man and a Democrat had the audacity to become president, and Snowden changed his tune 180 degrees, and became that very person he would've LOVED to see be "shot in the balls".

Still think he should be credible? Before you answer that, keep in mind that even a broken clock is right twice a day, but the question then is, would you buy that clock?

[Marr]

358. It doesn't matter if he's an asshole.

It's not about Snowden, it's about the information he exposed. The endless push to convince people that he is an unlikeable jerk, as if that will make it all go away, is just a waste of time.

[BlueCaliDem]

359. No. It doesn't. But it matters if he's a hypocritical GOP mole with a political agenda.

And he is.

Sorry, but I don't make it a habit of revering, supporting, or defending a Libertarian/Republican hypocrite who believes it's his calling to take down and embarrass a sitting Democratic president in a time of war, Marr, especially not on a Democratic Party supporting site.

Hence my statement that Snowden has ZERO credibility with me as a Democrat and a member of this Democratic Party supporting site.

[Marr]

360. No, it doesn't.

The information is what matters; not his attitude, or his politics, or the boxes in his garage. If he had nothing but unsupported accusations, that would be one thing-- but that is not the case.

I can't believe you actually just used that 'embarrassing the president in a time of WAR' line, btw. I'm sorry, but that's pure authoritarian horseshit, and just as thin now as it was a few years ago when the Bushies were using it.

If leaked information embarrasses the government, it's the fault of the government for *doing it*, not the leaker for exposing it.

[BlueCaliDem]

378. The information has a rightwing/libertarian bias.

Had Snowden not posted the "shoot them in the balls" comment regarding leaking sensitive information to the press, he would've had some degree of credibility. But unfortunately for him, the Internet is forever, and he crucified his own credibility by condoning leaking of information in a time of war to the press under the Cheney Administration while condemning it under an Obama Administration.

The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. And the more he's being exposed by investigative journalists - real investigative journalists - the more foolish it is for any DUer to defend this joke.

As I've stated in many other posts, I'll continue to consider the source - especially when a political agenda is clearly tacked on to the information being sold for own gain to two of the most oppressive countries in THE WORLD.

[Marr]

379. Facts don't have biases. /nt

[BlueCaliDem]

380. True. But people do. And that's my problem with Snowden worship. eom

[Marr]

382. "Snowden worship" is just an insult, not an argument.

Acknowledging the relevance of leaked information does not make one a "worshiper" of the leaker. The accusation is just a means of belittling critics.

[BlueCaliDem]

383. No. In this case, it's apropos. And it doesn't matter if it's considered an insult by some.

The fact that Snowden has, himself, insulted this country with his traitorous behavior, tried to embarrass the president and the American people while, at the same time, got chummy-chummy with dictatorial countries that happily lock you up if your sexual orientation isn't "gov't approved" is what's really insulting.

It never ceases to amaze me how Snowden-idolators can pooh-pooh away his blatant and proven hypocrisy all the while focusing their criticism with a laser-beam on the minutest thing President Obama says or does (or what they perceive he says and does) before they happily blow it out of proportion and have a reason to vilify him.

The disconnect is astonishing.

For the record, I really don't give two s**ts that the NSA is scouring my internet or phone activity. AT&T does it all the time. CRAs have been doing it since the inception of credit reporting agencies. My local Ralph's, Vons, and Stater Bros supermarkets and clothing boutiques do it every time I swipe my membership card. My bank does it. It's the price I pay for having internet access, cell phone access, credit cards, a mortgage, and getting discounts on daily items at the store to feed and clothe my family.

And considering the far more intrusive record-keeping and privacy invasion by the above, I don't see why I or any other law-abiding American should get all riled up over this NSA thing. I trust the U.S. Gov't in the capable hands of this president more than I do for-profit, backstabbing multinational corporations.

[Marr]

384. Wow.

So you don't mind being spied upon, and you don't think President Obama should be criticized.

That's fine-- I mean, you can believe anything you like, of course. But you surely must understand why others might find urgings to 'ignore everything the bad bad leaker is saying' somewhat unconvincing when they come from such a place.

[BlueCaliDem]

385. Everyone's a critic.

And that's fine with me. But I like to keep things in perspective.

[MADem]

163. Well, yes, he was, actually. His first job after getting out of the Army was

as a security guard (supposedly) at an NSA installation in MD. I seem to recall some insinuation that he did more than that there--that he "moved up" inside the organization and did computer work, which enabled him to apply for sysadmin positions with the government--the CIA, specifically-- subsequently. That was around 2004-5, which were "the Bush Years" by anyone's analysis of "time" and when "events occur."

His transition to the CIA pay roster in 2006 Europe was very smooth. However, the CIA eventually became suspicious of Ed--they thought he was a "problem employee" around 2009.

The C.I.A. suspected that Mr. Snowden was trying to break into classified computer files to which he was not authorized to have access, and decided to send him home, according to two senior American officials.

How interesting that his employment issues started just as Obama was beginning his first term.

His employment after that was not at "NSA," if we're to be technical; it was at contractor agencies like Dell and Booz.

So, rather than snark, just put the facts down and let them go where they will.

[Marr]

205. Again-- he was not working for the NSA in any meaningful sense in the Bush years.

It isn't really reasonable to ask why a security guard didn't go public with information he wasn't privy to, now is it? His position at Booz Allen came after the Bush years.

So again, it's ridiculous to ask why this man didn't go public during the Bush years.

[MADem]

211. And you know this...how?

I guess the CIA is in the habit of handing out sysadmin jobs in posh assignments like Switzerland to twenty-some-odd year old "security guards" as a matter of routine?

It is highly likely he got additional experience to qualify for the CIA job while he was employed at the NSA.

And he tried to steal material from the CIA while he was in Switzerland, it's what ended his employment with them, in essence. He had a DEROS letter in his file.

When Obama came into office, he was off to DELL in Japan. Later he went to Booz.

I remain convinced that he grabbed everything he could because he knew the revetting of his clearance would end badly. If you're going to go out with a bang, might as well get something out of it. Or maybe he had a more mercenary motive? Or maybe he had an employer other than the USG?

Who knows? I don't claim to have the answers. But I will acknowledge I just have a strong suspicion that that's how it went down. Had his SF86 not been up for review/re-vet, he'd probably be attending one of his girlfriend's performances with her dance troupe this week, and swimming in the blue, blue ocean, instead of braving the Moscow cold.

[Marr]

248. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound here?

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Your response to my very simple explanation of why Snowden didn't become a whistle blower during the Bush years (ie, he wasn't working for the NSA), is to construct a completely fictional Tom Clancy narrative, supported by absolutely nothing, and simply choose to believe that instead of plain, uncontested facts.

It's truly bizarre.

[MADem]

255. Trying to make this about me is a big fail for you.

You are speaking as if you know this guy's motivations, and you don't. You're also talking like you have an intimate knowledge of his resume--and you PLAINLY don't.

You're glossing over the fact that he jumped before he was pushed--during the Bush years, mind you--after his supervisor at CIA put a DEROS in his personnel file because he was trying to STEAL files. That's not "Tom Clancy" that's fact.

And you are also deliberately and obtusely glossing over the fact that he DID work for the NSA during the Bush years--from 2004 until 2006. As a twenty one year old kid, he got some substantial "experience" at NSA --- enough to QUALIFY him to be hired as a CIA sysadmin at a European posting in the first place. This, too, isn't "Tom Clancy"--it's fact.

You should try checking your facts before you snark. I am not the one who sounds ridiculous in this exchange.

But do go on with your bad self--you have a need to, I suppose?

[Marr]

257. There you go again, just making shit up.

You're the only one claiming Snowden's working as a security guard was what qualified him for a CIA sysadmin job.

You're writing paranoid narratives and just substituting them for reality. Pointing that out doesn't mean I'm "trying to make it about you", Mr. Clancy.

[MADem]

258. Reading is fundamental--and you're not doing that.

I didn't say what you're claiming I said, but nice try.

And using insult/catch phrases like "paranoid narratives" to try to rescue the sad but undeniable fact that you failed to remember that

a. Snowden worked for NSA from 2004-06 (the Bush years) and
b. He got a DEROS in his CIA file (where he was hired in 2006) for trying to steal files

isn't my problem--it's yours.

Keep flailing, now!

[Marr]

275. He was a security guard. If you're asking why he didn't go public during the Bush years...

...that seems like a pretty damned good explanation. He wasn't working with the NSA in any meaningful capacity.

Period, end of debate, sorry you don't want to acknowledge reality here, but there it is.

[MADem]

277. You don't have access to his resume. Neither do I.

But, if you really think the CIA hires 22 year old "security guards" to do sysadmin work in Switzerland, you go on ahead and knock yourself out with that kind of fantasy conjecture. This guy had no IT degree (he didn't even have a HS diploma), no certificates, no nothing--he had to prove himself somehow. Work experience and a supervisory recommendation are how most folks get over that hump.

And period, end of debate, sorry if you don't want to acknowledge reality (see how immature that sounds? Throw in a "Nanny nanny boo boo" for effect, why don't you?) right back atcha, there, sport.

Have a nice day.

[Marr]

301. *I'M* the one dealing in fantasy, because I find your asinine Tom Clancy time-travel conspiracy

theory to be unconvincing?

Let me get this whole thing straight. The official story is that Snowden worked as a security guard for awhile, eventually landed a sysadmin job for the CIA, and later (during the Obama Administration), the position with Booz Allen from which he leaked materials.

Your assertion is that his timing is questionable, because he didn't do this during the Bush Administration. When he was security guard, who, according to you, stole documents. So you suggest that he WAS attempting it when Bush was president. Except he was only doing it to make Obama, who was not yet president, look bad.

Do you know where he hid his time machine?

[MADem]

305. No--you are creating conclusions (while tossing repeated childish insults)

that are NOT mine out of your own preconceived notions.

Stop trying to pretend you know what other people think. I'm not on the "He was trying to make Obama look bad" train.

I've explained this elsewhere in the thread.

I'm done talking with you -- you're acting like a real jerk, with the snark and the insults, and I don't have the patience to play childish games with someone who can't put a sentence together without tossing in an overdose of teen-aged aggressive, baiting bullshit.

You might want to try growing up. People will have a better opinion of you if you do.

[Marr]

336. You might want to take your own advice.

These non-stop, silly, contradictory smears are absolutely ridiculous.

[MADem]

338. As the kids used to say, talk to the hand. nt

[TheKentuckian]

294. Let's take this as fact, is the argument now that in 2006 Snowden was attempting to steal files

in a racist plot to discredit the first black President as advanced by the OP?

You have spoken to motive several times, well motive isn't fitting the narrative here. Seems like the white, right wing, Republican Bush was President so all the "Libertarian", "racist", "why now?", "helping the Republicans" line of shit gets real goofy real quick which leaves you with the Cold War era spy novel angle.

If he was trying to steal documents in 2006 as you state then that supports his espoused motives far more than it casts doubt on them.

[MADem]

303. I think two or more things can be true and also be unrelated.

I think Snowden liked to collect information--knowledge is power.

I think he was a right-libertarian Paulbot who had a callous attitude towards those in our society who have need of the social safety net.

I think he disliked Obama.

I think the fact that he was advised that there were discrepancies in his resume (but they were going to hire him anyway) spooked him, and caused him to grab everything he could get his hands on, and run. I think he didn't carefully think through his little plan, and he rather stupidly skipped through two authoritarian dictatorships in a crazed, disorganized bid to escape, which have a worse record of surveillance and human rights than we could ever come up with, and now he's stuck because of his intemperate stupidity.

Either that, or he's a foreign agent who has been on another country's payroll for years, and they gave him the order to Grab and Run after he told them about the contretemps with his resume, that Booz had found "discrepancies" in the educational portion. Discrepancies have to be resolved--they can't just sit there. He knew he'd get another look-see by USIS...or maybe the "real" vetters would do the job this time, not incompetent contractors.

I don't think his heart is as pure as some might believe.

[TheKentuckian]

386. Why do you think he had the clairvoyance to know to go after Obama in 2006?

It would seem much, much, much more likely that the guy was doing something completely agnostic to Obama.

I think you are off in conspiracy land and/or are just slinging shit against the wall. Your pieces only fit together with a liberal application of glue from between your ears.

[MADem]

390. If you aren't going to read what I write, I'm not going to talk to you.

One more time,

I think two or more things can be true and also be unrelated.

So take your conspiracy insults and stuff them.

Try reading before snarking--you look terribly foolish (like you do now) when you don't.

[TheKentuckian]

392. Oh...I read what you wrote, I'll put you down for rejecting the OP

and just run with all the theory threads on an unrelated basis as opposed to necessarily a unified and willful plot.

My mistake.

[Recursion]

331. Occam's razor. Langley benefits from this directly; no need to look for another patron

Anything that hurts the NSA helps the CIA, and there have been a lot of very happy people at Langley for the past 10 months.

[MADem]

337. Not really, though. Langley's provincial attitude towards their personnel jackets is what

"unleashed the Snowden" on the NSA contractor empire.

Had they passed on their concerns to his next employer, he wouldn't have lasted there, most likely. He would have been fired in short order if his supervisor at Dell had talked to his supervisor at CIA.

I don't know if they are getting a bigger share of the Intel Cash Pie as a consequence, but I do know they've gotten a "You assholes! This guy was trying to break into files to which he didn't have access and nobody SAID anything?" lecture from the movers and shakers up the food chain. Like it or not, all those three letter agencies are going to have to do a far better job of cooperating than they've done to this point, and when it comes to contracted assets, they're going to have to--like it or not--SHARE information about employee misconduct.

[Recursion]

350. Well, that would be an excellent result

and when it comes to contracted assets, they're going to have to--like it or not--SHARE information about employee misconduct.

Let's hope so...

[cherokeeprogressive]

209. How often are "security guards" given the Keys to the Kingdom? n/t

[MADem]

213. I suppose it depends on the kingdom.

The bottom line is, though, access is one thing; supervised, verified experience that can be put on a resume, with a reference, from a covert agency, to obtain another, better job, is something else altogether.

[liberal_at_heart]

142. wow. great rant sabrina1.

[Mojorabbit]

295. + a gazillion. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

387. hear, hear Sabrina!

[BlueCaliDem]

42. Exactly!

That's about it in a nutshell.

[sabrina 1]

77. You're applauding someone who is so outstandingly wrong if there was a

a prize for most incorrect statement on the Internet that comment would definitely be in the running.

I had heard of blind loyalty, read about in history, but one has to be particularly blind to MAKE that statement considering the long line of Whistle Blowers who EXPOSED Bush's Illegal Spying program going back to 2001, and equally blind to applaud it.

Do the names Drake, Binney, Tice, just for starters, mean anything to you? And as far I remember, Bush was not African American so why did they do what Snowden did also? Could it possibly be because, considering most of them were Republicans and we rightfully applauded them, could it maybe have something to do with Americans like them actually finding something that is ABOVE Party loyalty? Like violations of the US Constitution??

Unbelievable what people will just make up out of thin air to try to defend the indefensible.

[BlueCaliDem]

134. Sorry. But GG has zero credibility as a whistleblower.

But feel free to continue to delude yourself into thinking that it's only all about "exposing Big Gubment's spying on Americans" for him, and that he's totally not politically motivated as the proven Libertarian ObamaHater/Bushlover and racist that he is. I'll continue to consider the source.

[sabrina 1]

172. Are you in the wrong thread? Greenwald is not the topic of this discussion.

I presume that the 'GG' you are referencing is Greenwald. Check the thread before you respond again would be my advice.

Not to mention that no one, including Greenwald, has ever claimed that he is a 'Whistle Blower', Greenwald is a Journalist who received leaks from a Whistle Blower. However that was not even remotely related to the topic you jumped into to offer your opinion.

[BlueCaliDem]

266. Yeah, well, after he defended

a blogger (Dr. Dawg) who venomously attacked Imani Gandi that "Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing" and Greenwald enthusiastically chimed in saying, “No – she’d say it was justified [and] noble – that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape” he deserves ZERO respect from people who purport to be here on a Democratic Party supporting site that was created to support DEMOCRATS.

And wow. You actually label him a journalist?? That opportunist doesn't even know the first rule of journalism: 1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth so how on god's green Earth can you claim he's a journalist without breaking out in roaring laughter??

But you go on ahead and keep the faith in Greenwald's self-debunked journalistic integrity. I'll call him out for the ObamaHating, BushLuvin', RonPaulSupportin', racist of a Libertarian that he is.

[sabrina 1]

267. I'm not interested in gossip. I'm interested in what is going on in this country and how

it has had an overall deleterious effect on this Democracy. As I always have been. And I don't care who is in power IF the policies in place are BAD for this Democracy.

I'm not interested in the personal lives of journalists or whistle blowers, I'm interested in whether or not their work is truthful ON THE ISSUES.

So to get back to what is important for this COUNTRY, are you now in support of the massive spying on the American people that the Left, some principled people on the Right and everyone in between because they are all American citizens, so totally opposed when Bush was caught doing it?

You can name call childishly all you want, but what I have noticed is for some reason you ALWAYS avoid discussing the ISSUES at stake.

[BlueCaliDem]

356. Having had the "pleasure" of reading your posts, I've noticed

that when you're cornered or someone you hold highly is criticized (justifiably), you have the tendency to attack the poster (the messenger) with zeal. So off that high horse you go!

For the record, of course I'm against massive spying on ANYONE. But guess what, sabrina? Every major corporation (the very corporations GG defends and hopes to keep in power by supporting Libertarian ideals and Republicans) is spying on the American consumer and have been for decades - ever since the advent of the Mastercard and Visa, and from AT&T to your local Vons Supermarket. So cry me a river already.

This crap didn't start under President Obama, as GG and you are trying to tell people. Sorry. It has been going on for DECADES; before President Obama even decided to be a State Senator - ever since the creation of Credit Reporting Agencies. Duh.

And I'm not "name-calling", childishly or otherwise. I'm stating FACT. There IS a difference. Try to understand at least that much.

And nothing, absolutely nothing, I've written in my previous post can be construed as "gossip". They are statements of fact, based on Greenwald's own tweets and blog posts - unless, of course, you believe someone's hacked into GG's twitter account and began tweeting without his knowledge - in the same line as Ron Paul had been trying to say that his racist newsletter were all written without his knowledge.

?1325380195

So, how's that for discussing the ISSUES.

Apology accepted. Being a Democrat who actually supports the Democratic Party, I'm courteous like that.

[sabrina 1]

391. A cursory mention of the issue at stake, the rest is gossip.

But we have become familiar with these distractions. They are not distracting people from issues. Seems it is all about one politician for a few people. I challenge YOU since rather than discuss the issue you chose to make this personal about me, thanks, I didn't think I was that important, to find a single post of mine that ever 'blamed' Obama, not that he is the issue either. I tend to look at the more important picture, THIS COUNTRY and have little interest in politicians on a personal level.

Thanks for a demonstration of what many people have noted though. Democrats, who didn't care that Drake was a REPUBLICAN when HE exposed Bush's malfeasance. Democrats who cheered for him for having the guts to expose the dangerous policies Bush and his gang of war criminals were putting in place.

I don't recall anyone attacking all the Whistle Blowers who came before Snowden, exposing these spying programs, based on their POLITICS. They, we said, AMERICANS, who put their party politics aside for the sake of the country.

Drake, Whistle Blower, Republican, did his duty. Good thing he was there when Bush was in the WH or his popularity among Dems would be very different, at least among SOME Dems.

Binney, Whistle Blower, Republican, did HIS duty too. Good thing he was around during the Bush years or he too would be accused of being 'a Republican'.

Tice, what were his politics? No one on the Left even asked, he exposed Bush's spying program, that's all we needed to know.

Snowden, well, unfortunately for him his revelations came after Bush's departure. Suddenly his politics are important. Why is that?

Had the very same person, Snowden, had access to the same info during the Bush years, I am willing to bet YOU would be calling him a hero.

I called all of them heroes. That is the difference between us. Because for me, and now a majority of Americans, it is about this COUNTRY, which takes, as it did during the Bush Whistle Blower era, precedence over party, over politics, over politicians. That is how it was for me then and that is how it still is.

I am so not interested in politicians when it comes to these issues. If they have done nothing wrong they don't need me to defend them. But this country badly needs someone to stand up for it, it needs badly for its citizens to set aside their personal agendas and focus on the destruction of the democracy it has aspired to be, that has taken place over the past decade or so.

You appear to think that if someone disagrees with you they are attacking you. That's YOUR problem, not mine. I will continue to do what I did during the Bush years, applaud those who stand up for this country regardless of their politics, because some things are way, way more important than that.

[Th1onein]

222. It's ALWAYS about the messengers, isn't it?

[BlueCaliDem]

264. Did you miss the last sentence in my post? Couldn't read that far?

Here, lemme help you:

IT'S ABOUT CONSIDERING THE SOURCE.

GG has zero credibility to act like a whistle-blower when everyone and his uncle who'S READ his blogs and tweets, know him for the racist ObamaHating/BushLuvin' Libertarian that he is.

NO ONE here on a DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUPPORTING COMMUNITY/SITE should defend him. His message? Yes. HIM or Snowden's credibility? HELL. NO.

[Th1onein]

320. Sorry, the SOURCES have been proven correct.

The administration has admitted what Snowden revealed was true. Even Clapper admitted he lied to Congress. That's the one thing that they are NOT doing, is denying the truth of Snowden's claims.

Sorry, you lost your argument.

[BlueCaliDem]

342. NO ONE, not even this Greenwald/SnowdenHater said that the message

was wrong. You made the argument that "it's always about the messengers" (defending known Libertarians/Republicans on a Democratic site - I'm certain GG and Snowden would be proud of you) and I argued that they lack any credibility as whistle-blowers. I said NADA about the message.

You really, really need to read posts you're responding to.

As for my losing the argument...well, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Knock yourself out. Please.

[Th1onein]

345. Do you have any idea what credibility means?

You are telling everyone to consider the source, when it comes to the credibility of the message, and yet the message has never been disputed. The source means NOTHING once the message has been admitted as true. Geez.

Once again, your argument is fatally flawed.

[BlueCaliDem]

354. Naw. Just because you don't understand a post, doesn't mean it's "flawed".

But you knew that from the get-go.

Never heard said that a broken clock is correct twice a day? Well, consider yourself informed. But the kicker is, not even you would buy it, would you?

[Th1onein]

365. Now, you're resorting to gibberish.

But you go on right ahead, honey. Enjoy your stay on my Ignore list. It surely makes my visits to DU much more enjoyable.

[BlueCaliDem]

377. If you can't win a debate, call it "gibberish" or "flawed".

Yeah. Real Teabaggerish of you.

I'll return the favor. Honey.

[former9thward]

2. Ohh the libertarian talking point...

That one is sorta old isn't it? Along with being a loser, a loner, a stripper for a girl friend, someone who didn't reveal anything we didn't know, someone who got people killed, boxes in the garage, etc.

Snowden was in his 20s. People mature and often change politics or take up political positions after they have been in the work world for awhile. That is the most obvious explanation. Not a deep conspiracy.

[TheMathieu]

3. Excellent read.

The great lengths people go to to ridicule and ostracize people asking these questions about Snowden is disturbing.

As freethinkers, we should pick apart any messenger or risk becoming pawns in whatever agenda they may be pushing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. See post #5.

In light of that information, no ridicule is necessary.

[Th1onein]

33. And what is YOUR agenda?

The fact is that the NSA is engaged in wholesale spying on Americans and the rest of the world. This FACT has nothing to do with the messenger. The reason that you want to pick apart the messenger is because you obviously do NOT want us to focus on the message. Why is that? What is YOUR agenda?

[TheMathieu]

49. To have a modest, underwhelming existence until the day I take my last breath.

Like most normal people.

[Cha]

51. ..

rofl

[randome]

52. Go ahead and be 'normal', TheMathieu, but don't be 'typical'.

We need all the atypical thinkers we can get.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[morningfog]

126. "We need all the atypical thinkers we can get."

hilarious.

[Th1onein]

123. Strange, you don't answer the question.

I'm sure you know that I meant your POLITICAL agenda. What kind of agenda is it that supports the idea that it is A-OK to spy on Americans, as long as the person who tells us about it doesn't agree with most of liberal philosophy?

Something is wrong with this picture. The only people who don't want Americans to focus on the spying are those who support the spying.

[Cha]

286. You very much did answer the question for what it was worth.

[Th1onein]

328. Nah, he didn't. But you're so NICE to try to defend the indefensible.

[Cha]

330. Bravo to you, TheMathieu, for not buying into the twister bullshit.

[NuclearDem]

6. Does Snowden's personal beliefs or history have any bearing on whether his claims are accurate?

No, not at all.

And people are allowed to change over time. This vegan, feminist, anti-war, atheist anarchist used to be an omnivorous, misogynist, right-wing Christian airman. During the time I changed, we elected a Democrat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. it goes to motivation and trustworthiness....

and besides....he has those around here that worship the ground he walks on.

[Armstead]

87. You love that word "worship" doncha?

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. I am not the one usually saying that word....but I like tossing it back in faces though!

[NuclearDem]

93. Unless he altered the documents before he released them

it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. I don't care who a person is; if their claims turn out to hold water, that's all that matters.

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. and he now claims that Russia is the home of Human rights!

shows how much he really "knows" huh?

[NuclearDem]

101. Which is bullshit that he did. It's inexcusable.

Doesn't change what the documents he leaked revealed, though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. you mean the nothing....

[NuclearDem]

104. Right, the "nothing" we knew about already, was started under Bush...

And spurred Obama to propose reforms to the NSA.

That's pretty powerful nothing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. I don't remember Obama saying it was Snowden that spurred him...do you?

[Fumesucker]

7. Anyone with a lick of sense knows nothing would happen if he did it during a Republican admin?

[RC]

8. No, it is about exposing a power hungry, renegade federal agency, bent on collecting information

on anyone who is anybody, including the private phone calls heads of state of other nations.
Then there is the not so little matter of wholesale 4th Amendment, Constitutional violations, involving searches and seizure's, without the proper authorization.
Snowden is only the messenger. The real criminals are the people in charge of the NSA and those that would deflect the wrong doing by our government to the people that expose that wrong doing.
Without Edward Snowden, we'd have no clue as to how close we are to losing our freedom to Total Information Awareness.

[Thinkingabout]

9. Snowden is an activist. Not for a second do I believe his current scheme is about

Revealing information to Americans since the information has been known since 2005. It is naive to think he has done a favor by revealing anything. I do not know the whole conspiracy but one day ot will be revealed, more comes out all the time. If he continues to live in Russia then it just may be different from his third or fourth story he has told up to this time.

[Raven]

10. He was a teenager/early-20s kid during the Bush years.

Wrong is wrong. Fault the kid for not having a time machine.

[Cha]

11. the article isn't all about bush.

"And nearly as soon as Obama took office, Snowden developed a deep aversion to the new president. TheTrueHOOHA reacted furiously when Obama named Leon Panetta as his new director of central intelligence. But it was Panetta’s credentials he objected to, not his stance on surveillance matters. “Obama just named a fucking politician to run the CIA,” Snowden erupted. And he became furious about Obama’s domestic policies on a variety of fronts. For example, he was offended by the possibility that the new president would revive a ban on assault weapons. “See, that’s why I’m goddamned glad for the second amendment,” Snowden wrote, in another chat. “Me and all my lunatic, gun-toting NRA compatriots would be on the steps of Congress before the C-Span feed finished.”

[MADem]

199. He joined the Army and then worked for the NSA in MD and then for the

CIA in Europe during the Bush years.

He moved to Dell in Japan during the Obama years, after the CIA in Europe put a derogatory report in his employment file which was never forwarded to his new bosses.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. the volume of bad snowden or greenwald ops is directly proportional to the damage from

the latest revelations to the establishment.

[truebluegreen]

13. Bingo.

[Scuba]

22. +1

[cantbeserious]

26. Roger That

eom

[frwrfpos]

28. plus 1

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. ^^^THIS^^^

[quakerboy]

36. This

When I see a resurgance of "snowden is bad, greenwald is bad" posts, my first question is what is it we are being distracted from.

The obsession over them is a bit crazy. A minor journalist and a 20 something in another country. If they really had nothing, I would hear their names about as often as I hear larouche's name. IE about once a month when they did something wacky. Instead, we have a nearly daily revisiting of how hateful and horrible they are.

[polichick]

37. Shhhhh

[840high]

65. Yes.

[WillyT]

71. Yep...

[liberal_at_heart]

146. +1

[AnalystInParadise]

158. This +1

the daily two minute hate is fun though, it does allow us to see those in the group that would sell the people out for the party or the individual.

[bobduca]

393. the pattern is obvious to all but those with pom poms

[Cha]

14. Fuck Ron Paul lovin' Snowden and his "God complex".. all he's spewed from Russia is hate and lies

about President Obama while praising his new fucking country.

From your link, YDC..

"At the time the stimulus bill was being debated, Snowden also condemned Obama’s economic policies as part of a deliberate scheme “to devalue the currency absolutely as fast as theoretically possible.” (He favored Ron Paul’s call for the United States to return to the gold standard.) The social dislocations of the financial collapse bothered him not at all. “Almost everyone was self-employed prior to 1900,” he asserted. “Why is 12% employment [sic] so terrifying?” In another chat-room exchange, Snowden debated the merits of Social Security:"..

He's the fucking ultimate victim of ODS.

[NuclearDem]

17. I'm still waiting for an explanation of how this invalidates anything reported from the leaks.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. Right...you wouldn't care if it were Rand Paul himself...yeah we get that....

as long as its condemning the govt of the U.S. its all good right?

[NuclearDem]

97. Oh, right. Because I'm an anarchist.

[VanillaRhapsody]

99. Or something...

[Electric Monk]

100. You prefer being lied to instead of knowing the truth? Ok, good to know. I feel differently, though.

nt

[Th1onein]

127. You notice how angry they all are at Snowden?

Hmmm......why is that? Is it because they have such support for Obama, or because they have such support for the spying?

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. We are not angry...we think he is nucking futz

[AnalystInParadise]

154. Yeah

anyone exposing crimes against the American people are insane. I mean who does he think he is, no crimes against the people by the state are allowed to happen after 2008, doesn't he realize that? Didn't he get the memo? It was wrong when Bush did it, it sure as shit is still wrong when our side does it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. Anyone who opens his mouth and crazy stuff flies out....I usually consider pretty screwwy!

[AnalystInParadise]

166. So you don't ever look in the mirror do you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. Everyday....don't you?

by the way...when "I" type....I don't move my lips....you might want to try not doing that....it makes you look screwwy.

[AnalystInParadise]

174. :)

[ljm2002]

215. Is that the royal "We"?

Or are you speaking for a group? If you are speaking for a group, is that an acknowledgment of some coordinated messaging going on here?

Just curious.

[VanillaRhapsody]

250. Speaking to what this poster directed at another group!

got a problem with that?

And curiosity killed the cat...just sayin'

[ljm2002]

251. Nice try...

...no cigar.

If you took that poster's comments as being directed "at another group", then why would you respond using "we"?

It's a small enough thing, but telling.

[ucrdem]

224. Exactement.

Winger on a mission. In a swiftboat.

[Cha]

271. Libertarian asshole with a god-complex who's Putin's ratfucker now.

[ucrdem]

300. that too . . .

From Russia with love!


. . . for Vlad!

[TheKentuckian]

19. So now being opposed to dragnet surveillance is cynical Libertarianism?

Also, is your sympathy for the increased power of the surveillance state ever going to extend beyond witch hunts and smearing of those critics or is it just something a millimeter deep to say to set a balanced frame for the appearance of some level of objectivity before getting to the well worn meat of the agenda?

[OnyxCollie]

20. Why do you hate the Fourth Amendment?

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. When the facts are against you, argue the law.

When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When both the facts and the law are against you, call the other lawyer names.

You've caught right on.

[Savannahmann]

23. So I should reject ideals, principles, and positions based upon who agrees with it?

Actually I have several questions. First, how many people volunteered for the military in both Viet-Nam and Iraq and returned disillusioned and disgusted by what they saw? Many are now prominent people. Secretary of State John Kerry was but one person who came home disgusted by what he'd seen in Viet-Nam.

Iraq Vets against the War is a group of modern equivalence. They joined the military of their own free will, and went off with one image in their minds, an image that was destroyed by the reality of our invasion. These are not experts in international law, but people who believed what they would be doing was right, only to find the exact opposite reality.

Should we denounce them because over time they learned their mistake? Or should we embrace them for joining a position that many of us have always held in our hearts? According to the standard applied to Snowden, we should denounce them, reject them, and ignore anything they say because they were warmongers before they were not.

I can agree with Libertarians on a few, very few, issues. When I say that people immediately demand that I reject those principles because the Libertarians embrace them. Legalization of Marijuana for one narrow example. Opposition to an illegal and unconstitutional spying apparatus. They proclaim civil liberties. I proclaim individual rights and the constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure.

Let's say that we had a bill in Congress, one that would legalize Marijuana in this nation. We have some votes, but we'll need the Libertarian leaning members of congress to push it to the President's desk. Should we immediately denounce the effort to legalize the marijuana because the Libertarians are in favor of it? According to far too many party purists here, the answer is yes. They would rather see tens of thousands of people incarcerated for a bullshit crime than agree with a Libertarian on even one narrow issue.

By the party purity mentality that you are pushing, we should not agree with Libertarians ever. So we as a party must now oppose legalization of Marijuana and demand incarceration for anyone who uses it. If not, we could be strengthening the Libertarian position. The Libertarians are opposed to spying on the people, and so we as a party must be in favor of it.

If that is the situation, and those are the positions we are taking. Then the Democratic Party has just left me behind.

I believe in my ideals and principles because I believe that my conclusions are justified by logic, reason, and my core principled beliefs. If you believe in the same conclusions, I don't care how you arrived at that conclusion, I am glad to have a voice joining me in singing the praises of our ideals. If you denounce the omnipresent spying and invasions of privacy that I also denounce, then you are welcome to write your congressman and senator and letters to the editor and donate money and whatever else you want to do. If you do so because you believe the Federal Government should consist of eight employees and everything else should be left to the States, so be it. I don't care. We'll argue about the role of the Federal Government in taking care of the General Welfare later. Because in that situation, I'll argue against your position on the issues with all the determination and all the ability I possess to sway opinions I can muster.

But on those very few issues that we can agree on, I will happily, gladly take your vote assistance. Call it Civil Liberties if you want, I don't care. What I want is the spying to stop. I want the NSA/FBI/DHS/CIA/God alone knows who else spying to stop. I want the constitutional protections against this enforced with no exceptions because I believe that the rights of the people are being violated, and the Government is doing so in an unconstitutional manner.

The Supreme Court has ruled that many things are Constitutional that we continue to fight against. Citizens United is but one example. The Courts ruled that Net Neutrality was a violation of the Constitution. Yet we continue to fight against that. Why would we do that if the court says it's constitutional? Shouldn't we embrace those positions? I mean, the Libertarians always complain that the courts are changing the laws and usurping the constitution. Aren't we helping the Libertarians by opposing the power and wisdom of the courts?

Do you see the asinine position that these arguments take? It is a variation of the Kill the messenger mentality that has been promulgated by the Authoritarians since this mess began. We can't debate the substance of the issues because the guy who brought it to our attention is a jackass libertarian who dated a stripper, left the stripper, and is hiding in Russia who is anti GLBT rights. All of that is smokescreen, designed to cloud the real issue. Is the Government spying on us all?

Well, we can't discuss that because it will help the Terrorists and other awful people and besides Snowden is a Libertarian who was a big Bush accolade and nobody is allowed to change their minds or evolve on the issue.

So keep up the whole Snowden is an ass defense. It hasn't worked, it's transparently juvenile, and it is insulting as hell.

Because I am not going to start supporting maximum criminalization of Marijuana because the Libertarians are on the other side of the issue.

I am not going to support the NSA/FBI/insert all the fucking assholes here spying on us because the Libertarians are opposed to it.

I am going to reach my own conclusions based upon as many informed opinions as I can manage, and I am going to support those ideals with logic and rational arguments. If all you have to counter my arguments is character assassination, then we both know who has won the argument don't we?

[Oilwellian]

38. Excellent reply

[Broward]

69. Great post.

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. Well around here...if you don't toe the line on EVERY issue you get tossed overboard...so...

YMMV

[Marr]

109. Awww.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. I wasn't the one crying about it...I was just pointing out facts!

[NuclearDem]

112. Not really.

You get tossed overboard for rape apologia though.

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. As a rape survivor?

pathetic and weak...(not to mention desperate).

[NuclearDem]

119. That only made the statements you made even more appalling.

[VanillaRhapsody]

131. Yeah sure....rapes survivors are always appalling right?

Not once did I say rape doesn't happen did I? Not once...(as others repeatedly pointed out to you there). But it does prove to me how sick and twisted (and desperate) you are!

[Savannahmann]

242. I wonder if the Authoritarians realize just how stupid it is?

If we are to reject everything, and everyone who holds any Libertarian approved beliefs, we are in big trouble.

Wendy Davis, State Senator in Texas, Gubernatorial hopeful. She made the national news because of her courageous filibuster to prevent a further erosion of Women's Rights. But she is in favor of gun ownership, including exposed carry of firearms in public places.

Now, many here would say that in Texas, there is no way for a Democrat to be elected who is not a gun toting country music listening person who wears big hats. We should forgive the whole gun issue because the bigger issue is a woman's right, and getting the Rick Perry onto the unemployment lines.

But can we support her now? I mean the Libertarian Party has pretty much the same position on guns don't they? http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-laws

So if we support Wendy Davis, aren't we strengthening the position of the Libertarians and helping them? By the standard applied to Snowden and the NSA, we would have to eschew Wendy Davis because she has the same political position on an issue as the Libertarians.

In fact, we are in trouble, huge trouble. Because Libertarians are actually pro choice. http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-chair-not-pro-life-or-pro-choice-but-individual-choice-0

So now what do we do? If we are pro life, we join with the Rethugs and the RW Religulous lunatics. If we're pro-choice, we help the Libertarian Party and Rand Paul.

So being a good Democrat means finding only candidates who are anti-gun and anti-choice who want Marijuana users incarcerated and endorses the unfettered FBI/NSA spying that Snowden exposed.

So how do we win elections on that platform? Because the numbers of pro life anti gun districts are going to be pretty few and far between. But that's not important, the important thing is that we stop the spread of Libertarian ideals like Pro Choice, and legalized Marijuana, and individual privacy.

Sorry Wendy Davis, but it seems the authoritarians can't support you because you hold some beliefs that are too similar to the Libertarians. As for me, and my ideals of standing FOR things instead of insane knee jerk demands that I be AGAINST them.
GO WENDY!!!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

249. Bingo! Prime Example of what I was talking about...

Anyone who disagrees with you is an "Authoritarian" but God forbid anyone should label YOU!

Thanks for proving my point!

[Whisp]

27. TheTrueHeeHawIDIOT = Snowden.

gawd what an obnoxious little dork

[quinnox]

35. It doesn't really matter, what's important is he took this courageous action

And we all are grateful for it. And it is very natural for liberals/progressives to support someone speaking truth to power, it would be very strange for liberals/progressives to support police state wholesale spying.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. THIS is NOT courage...it may be alot of things...but courage it is not...

Rosa Parks was courageous....Muhammed Ali was courageous....Mandela was courageous.....Brave people do not run!

Courage is standing up for something and ACCEPTING the consequences come what may. That's called having the courage of your convictions. Snowden doesn't have that...in fact he is hilariously praising the Russia for its "human rights"!!!

[Dawson Leery]

85. Snowden is a yellow sob.

There are problems with the NSA/security state that need to be repaired. Snowden is making trouble and is offering no solutions.
In addition, running into the arms of a true form tyrant (Putin) only hurts is cause.

[VanillaRhapsody]

91. And he cannot comprehend why that is even a problem....

He is not right....I actually almost feel sorry for him....he let Greenwald use him like this.

[Dawson Leery]

113. Snowden is showing his right wing libertarianism.

He is making this entire episode about himself. He does not want to deal with the consequences of what he did.
On top of that, there are many, including Greenwald he see Snowden as being the in the same league as MLK and Gandhi. MLK and Gandhi never ran off to another country to hide. I find such comparisons outright infuriating.

[AnalystInParadise]

132. Yeah!!!!

I mean we are assassinating the 16 year old children of American citizens, who themselves are American civilians, so why the fuck should Snowden be afraid? Ref: Abdulrahman Al Awlaki in case you are mentally stunted........As a member of the IC about to leave it over this bullshit, I wish I was half as courageous as Snowden. Smart people run, especially from this monster we have become.

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. Right...sure...

like nobody got killed during Civil Rights huh?

[AnalystInParadise]

138. Huh

what do you know, you won't even answer the charges, you just change the subject. Typical.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. I haven't had charges filed against me as far as I know...

[AnalystInParadise]

155. I am not sure you would know

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. I'm pretty sure I would...

they know where I am...

[AnalystInParadise]

165. Yeah

still kind of debatable.......you seem ok with excusing crimes committed by a Democratic Administration, so I am sticking to my opinion

[Adam051188]

39. I'm confused

IS snowden a dissident, activist, terrorist, or traitor? Or have all those come to mean the same thing? Or is it more convenient to leave them undefined and interchangeable? Just curious....

[dionysus]

40. oooh, you just insulted the sweet bebe jeebus...

[Cha]

46. ...

I'm sorry but that just rocks!

[BlueCaliDem]

41. The message is good. The messenger, however, has zero credibility.

His credibility has taken a huge hit and it's damaged because he comes across as hypocritical. And people don't generally give hypocrites a serious look.

[Bobbie Jo]

44. This. nt

[Cha]

48. Snowden has made this about himself.. him and his

hate spewing lies from Russia.

There isn't enough adoration in the world to cover up his hypocritical bullshit. As Bill Maher said.. everything out of his mouth is fucking nuts. This is about Edward Snowden and his god complex.. so there he is in Russia that he has thanked along with other countries for their "stand against human rights violations". As he continues to take dumps on the USA and England.. anyone but Russia and China.

Leave Russia Alone says Edward Snowden holding court in Russia..

[brush]

62. You're so right, Cha . . .

Snowden praises Russia on their "stand against human rights violations" . . . but, but but, we're all just experienced all the anti-gay build up to the Olympics in Russia, so I guess in Snowden's mind gays aren't entitled to human rights?

How does that square with him praising the Russians on human rights when he has to know they're violating the hell out of gay human rights?

Can I get an "H", for hypocrisy? That word keeps coming to mind when Snowden is examined a little more closely. Seems the great hero is willing to overlook Russia's anti-gay acts as long as they harbor him.

And he was willing to overlook Bush's Patriot act crap, even vilifying whistle blowers who leaked government secrets. He even said they should be shot in the balls.

Then Obama, the black guy, took office and all bets were off. He had this great "Damacus Road" conversion to whistle blowing himself.

Well whistle blowing St. Edward, SPEAK THE FUCK UP ABOUT GAY RIGHTS IN RUSSIA IF YOU'RE SO CONCERNED ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS.

[randome]

64. Pussy Riot went to jail. When they were freed, they still spoke up against Putin.

Now that's courage.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers. It's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

72. They have so much courage.. It's laughable when

snowden is called "brave".. actually it's sick.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. Pussy Riot has the courage that Comrade Snowden WISHES he had!

[Number23]

95. A FREAKING Men

[Cha]

70. It's not just Gay Equality, brush..

It's everything that doesn't suck up to Putin..

snip//

"In recent months, Russian authorities have intensified their assault on basic freedoms and undermined rule of law. The assault takes many forms. New bills - passed just this week by the country's lower house of Parliament and expected to be approved in the near future by the upper house of Parliament and signed into law by President Vladimir Putin – restrict the activities of non-governmental organizations, criminalize public actions "committed to insult the religious feelings of believers" and outlaw activism by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals and their supporters. I would note that the new law criminalizing "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations," passed 436-0 by the rubber stamp Duma this week, comes as much of the world marks Pride month.

New controls over the media are being used to smear government critics and bolster the government's policy line. Authorities use secret detention facilities and torture, especially in the North Caucuses region, to silence critics and deny them access to counsel. These measures are widespread and systematic. They are being imposed on domestic and international civil society groups alike.

This crackdown, coming as Russia prepares to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, should be a matter of grave concern to the U.S. government. Moscow's lack of respect for human rights speaks volumes about its reliability as a potential partner to the United States and Europe in addressing pressing international security concerns, from the conflict in Syria to the danger of nuclear proliferation. Moreover, it marks an ominous turn in a country that had been making progress towards developing more open, transparent, and accountable governance."

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/freedom-under-assault-in-putin-s-russia

Yeah, where's big mouth Edward on Gay Equality in Russia since he's so very burningly concerned about our civil rights in the US as he's sucking up to Putin in Russia?

[Jamaal510]

353. The question of the century right here:

"Yeah, where's big mouth Edward on Gay Equality in Russia since he's so very burningly concerned about our civil rights in the US as he's sucking up to Putin in Russia?"

Not just him, but libertarians in general...they seem strangely quiet when it comes to issues like gay rights, women's rights, and voting rights, despite those also being related to people's freedoms. But when it comes to their guns, their drugs, or their porn collection, that is when all Hell breaks loose!

[Cha]

355. Libertarians Suck the Big Homophobic, Racist, and Women's Rights, republicon

Propaganda Machine, Jamaal. They're major lying assholes and that includes Putin's Propaganda Puppet In Russia.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Don't forget he is Comrade Snowden now!

[Cha]

92. What's a poor hacker to do?..

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. Yeah he loves him some Mother Russia!

[sheshe2]

110. Oh dear lord ...read this, Cha.

Edward Snowden is a modern-day Prometheus
The whistle-blower may not have bestowed fire upon humanity, but he's still given an invaluable gift to mankind



Dear Edward Snowden,

Billions of us, from prime ministers to hackers, are watching a live espionage movie in which you are the protagonist and perhaps the sacrifice. Your way forward is clear to no one, least of all, I’m sure, you.

I fear for you; I think of you with a heavy heart. I imagine hiding you like Anne Frank. I imagine Hollywood movie magic in which a young lookalike would swap places with you and let you flee to safety — if there is any safety in this world of extreme rendition and extrajudicial execution by the government that you and I were born under and that you, until recently, served. I fear you may pay, if not with your death, with your life — with a life that can have no conventional outcome anytime soon, if ever. “Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped,” you told us, and they are trying to stop you instead.

I am moved by your choice of our future over yours, the world over yourself. You know what few do nowadays: that the self is not the same as self-interest. You are someone who is smart enough, idealistic enough, bold enough to know that living with yourself in a system of utter corruption would destroy that self as an ideal, as something worth being. Doing what you’ve done, on the other hand, would give you a self you could live with, even if it gave you nowhere to live or no life. Which is to say, you have become a hero.

Pity the country that requires a hero, Bertolt Brecht once remarked, but pity the heroes too. They are the other homeless, the people who don’t fit in. They are the ones who see the hardest work and do it, and pay the price we charge those who do what we can’t or won’t. If the old stories were about heroes who saved us from others, modern heroes — Nelson Mandela, Cesar Chavez, Rachel Carson, Ella Baker, Martin Luther King, Aung San Suu Kyi — endeavored to save us from ourselves, from our own governments and systems of power.

The rest of us so often sacrifice that self and those ideals to fit in, to be part of a cannibal system, a system that eats souls and defiles truths and serves only power. Or we negotiate quietly to maintain an uneasy distance from it and then go about our own business. Though in my world quite a few of us strike our small blows against empire, you, young man, you were situated where you could run a dagger through the dragon’s eye, and that dragon is writhing in agony now; in that agony it has lost its magic: an arrangement whereby it remains invisible while making the rest of us ever more naked to its glaring eye.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/rebecca_solnit_edward_snowden_is_a_modern_day_prometheus_partner/


In Greek mythology, Prometheus (/prəˈmiː?iːəs/; Greek: ???????ύ?, pronounced [promɛːtʰeús], which might mean "foresight&quot is a Titan, culture hero, and trickster figure who is credited with the creation of man from clay, and who defies the gods and gives fire to humanity, an act that enabled progress and civilization. Prometheus is known for his intelligence and as a champion of mankind.

snip


In the Western classical tradition, Prometheus became a figure who represented human striving, particularly the quest for scientific knowledge, and the risk of overreaching or unintended consequences. In particular, he was regarded in the Romantic era as embodying the lone genius whose efforts to improve human existence could also result in tragedy: Mary Shelley, for instance, gave The Modern Prometheus as the subtitle to her novel Frankenstein (1818).

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

[Cha]

125. "Vatican Forces Storm Dome of the Rock, Pope names Snowden Messiah"

JERUSALEM — Saint Edward Snowden landed in Jerusalem today, accompanied by Pope Francis, Glen Greenwild, and an entourage of WikiLeaks agents. After leaking documents proving HAARP assassinations, Chemtrails, Ultraterrestrials, and NSA surveillance, Pope Francis quickly sanctified Saint Snowden.

"Tuesday Morning, several hundred heavily armed Swiss commandos from the Vatican captured the Dome of the Rock from Muslim forces. Soon after, in a ceremony which took place atop the Rock — Jews and Christians believe God spared Abraham the sacrifice of his firstborn son Isaac upon the Rock — Pope Francis gave Snowden the name Messiah.

Catholics around the world are celebrating the second coming of Christ, and rabidly searching out a candidate for the Anti-Christ. Because Snowden has pitted himself as the main aggressor in a proxy cyberbattle between America and its most potent allies, most Catholics believe Obama to be the Anti-Christ. Pope Francis has made no comment. However, the Moscow Patriarchate, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, issued statements recognizing Snowden as Messiah and condemned Obama for “unforgivable crimes against humanity.”

http://www.chronicle.su/news/vatican-forces-storm-dome-of-the-rock-pope-names-snowden-messiah

So the hacker in Russia who never met a human rights violation there, that would prompt him to speak out about Putin, is Prometheus and set for Sainthood..



Got it.. right, she..

[Th1onein]

129. No, YOU have made it about Snowden. Constant harping on him.

This is about the spying. Everyone else knows it, but you refuse to address that. NOT ONCE have I heard you, or anyone on the same "team" as you, talk about the spying. It's ALWAYS about Snowden and Greenwald.

There is something very telling in that stance. Something that doesn't meet liberal standards. Something dark and slimey. WHO, in their right mind, supports wholesale spying?

YOU DO. Because it's obvious, you certainly don't stand against it. You won't even address the topic.

[Cha]

130. Snowden made it about himself.. constantly coming out and harping about fucking bullshit.

Poor Eddie(Leave Russia Alone)Snowden

[Th1onein]

221. Snowden made everyone pay attention, finally.

And that's what you hate about him. But your true colors are shining through: you support spying on Americans, and the rest of the world, as well.

[Cha]

268. Snowden has a god/persecution complex and "everything out of his mouth is fucking nuts".

[Th1onein]

318. Sorry, Cha, the cat's already out of the bag.

Remember? Clapper admitted he lied to Congress?

Quoting Bill Maher doesn't give you credibility, Cha. In fact, at this point, I don't think much of anything could give you credibility. You support wholesale and warrantless spying on Americans and the rest of the world. Nuff said.

Oh, one last thing: Shame on you.

[Cha]

366. Everything out of Snowden's mouth is fuckin' nuts.

[brush]

148. You wanna talk about the spying . . .

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 03:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Ok, Snowden re-revealed that NSA was collecting info domestically. I say re-revealed because this whole NSA-info-gathering story had already been revealed back in 2007 but no one paid attention (It was sort of like Columbus being given credit for discovering America when the Native Americans had already discovered it centuries earlier).

Anyway no one paid attention before — maybe because in Bush/Chaney time it was ok because we were at war and he was a "War President", whatever the hell that meant. And some of his henchmen were even telling people to keep their mouth shut and not criticize the president when we were at war. And people did, including Snowden.

And then suddenly there was a black president and now in Snowden's mind this whole NSA-info-gathering needed to be revealed again. AND THE DOMESTIC PART OF IT, HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT, but what business is it of Snowden's to reveal Australian v Indonesia covert operations, or the fact that British agents used the "honey trap" tactic, or that we — drum roll please — spied on other countries (I myself am still "shocked, shocked that spying is going on in this establishment" — pardon paraphrasing of Louie from Casablanca).

But seriously, St. Eddie went way over the line when he and Greenwald began revealing, trickle-by-trickle style, apparently to prolong their 15 minutes, the intricacies of our and other nations' international covert operations.

I say again, WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF HIS TO REVEAL THESE SECRETS? THOSE ARE NOT HIS DECISIONS TO MAKE.

Is that enough talking about the spy stuff. A non-elected, somewhat naive, 29-year-old should not be the one deciding to reveal our or other countries' covert operations.

[Th1onein]

220. What you so conveniently forget is that we stand for those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

And if that's what we stand for, are they only for Americans? I think not.

And neither does Snowden, and you know what? He's RIGHT. He might be only twenty nine years old, but he is right, and he did the right thing.

Now, get back to posting about his pole dancer girlfriend and the boxes in his garage. We expect nothing less from you.

[brush]

247. The Bill of Rights?

What does the Bill of Rights have to do with it?

It's simple. The domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing, okay.

Revealing his own country's, and other countries' covert operations went way too far. That is the reason many of us are upset with Snowden.

And just so you're clear, again, the domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing. Got that?

Broadcasting the intricacies of your own country's covert operations is not a decision to be made by a naive, non-elected, 29-year-old who ran away. Some people call what he did sedition. Some call him a traitor. I'll just call him a defector for now as more will come out about this.

It's that simple.

[Th1onein]

316. He should only have told Americans that their rights were abridged?

So, we only believe in OUR rights, not actually HUMAN rights? Only Americans have rights?

Oh, and by the way? Don't get rude with me. I will put you on Ignore.

[brush]

344. So the US should not deploy covert operatives?

And other countries will also stop spying because of Snowden?

Not gonna happen.

And what's this ignore thing?

Would I even notice?

[Th1onein]

346. Off to Ignore with you!

Enjoy your stay.

[brush]

349. You don't get it. I don't care

[Cha]

367. You're lucky..

you got put on ignore. Btw, you weren't being "rude" as you know. You were being factual and in their book.. that's bloody rude.

[Cha]

326. And, that is where Snowden's god complex comes into play. He's a hypocrite as he sits there in

Russia singing their praises for standing against Human rights while he whines about other countries.

Poor Snowden and his twister people.







Fuck the ratfuckers.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

43. Thank you for highlighting this Snowden creep's

Hypocrisy and creepiness.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Tsk. Tsk. Another kill the messenger message.

Glad to hear you're "sympathetic" to the opposition to the surveillance state. Were you sympathetic to the opposition before Snowden's revelations of it's excesses?

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. If the creepy shoes fits.....

Was Snowden "sympathetic to the opposition" before the Black man became president?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

137. Was Obama sympathetic to the opposition (the NSA) before he became president?

Or, was he already on the side of the MIC?

[VanillaRhapsody]

144. WTF does that even mean

please rewrite in some other language...that is not one I can translate...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

153. Try again.

I consider the NSA/CIA/et al a helluva lot more "the opposition" than the guy who revealed what their doing.

[BlueCaliDem]

149. Dear lord.

[brush]

159. Do you know that the NSA info gathering story came out first during the Bush years?

Snowden, the Libertarian and shoot-whistle-blowers-in-the-balls advocate, just resurrected it after he had his "Damascus Road" conversion — curiously enough when we have a black president. Wonder if there's a connection?

[AnalystInParadise]

169. Probably not

But isn't shit that was wrong 7 years ago, still wrong right now?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

170. If so, why is the NSA still in operation under Obama?

And, why is Obama now reacting to the news with CYA statements and policies?

[brush]

189. It's a two-part story

It's simple. The domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing.

Revealing his own country's, and other countries' covert operations went way too far. That is the reason many of us are upset with Snowden. There are two parts to this story.

And just so you're clear, again, the domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing. Got that?

Broadcasting the intricacies of your own country's covert operations is not a decision to be made by a naive, non-elected, 29-year-old who then ran away. Some people call what he did sedition. Some call him a traitor. I'll just call him a defector for now.

It's that simple.

[AnalystInParadise]

191. The fact that we are illegally

violating the entire oversight process for intelligence is a bad thing, got that? Somehow I don't think you do.

[brush]

193. Did you not understand that I said Snowden's reveal of domestic spying is a good thing

Revealing the intricacies of our international covert operations is considered sedition by many, treachery by others.

And what business is it of Snowden's to reveal Australian operations v Indonesia, or that fact that British agents used the "honey trap" technique?

International. Domestic. Two different things.

[AnalystInParadise]

201. Great

I do not think it is sedition or treachery. I understand the difference very well, I do not care. He revealed MASSIVE illegality being committed by the IC, it is enough to make me regret all my service for 20 years.

[brush]

204. I'm not understanding

Are you saying that international covert operations, spying, is illegal? That's certainly not a revelation.

And the fact that Snowden revealed that we, and other nations spy, has made you regret your service? Am I getting that wrong?

You know spooks spy. That's what they do. If they get caught it's big trouble for them. They know that and accept the risks as they feel it's that important to their country.

And you have to know it's not going to stop because countries like to know what their enemies, and in some cases even what their allies are up to.

[AnalystInParadise]

297. I am unsure what you are trying to say.

We do not spy on our own people, the number one rule drilled into my head for 20 plus years now. Every year for annual training we complete training on ethics in collection and the number one rule is we do not collect on our own people. You keep playing word games and not addressing the facts. I was an analyst, not a collector so yes I expect us to adhere to the training i have received for 20 plus years. If you cannot get it through your head how disgusting this is to someone like me with 20 years of training, we have nothing further to say to each other. This is wrong, it is illegal and the military goes out of its way to train its Intelligence Corps that collecting on Americans is illegal. Get that through your damn head. This is not about foreign anything.........Jesus Christ.

[ucrdem]

306. Metadata collection isn't spying and it isn't illegal.

You didn't know that?

[brush]

313. Sorry for the misunderstanding

Of course the domestic stuff has to stop. I was talking about Snowden's international revelations.

[AnalystInParadise]

321. Thank you

n/t

[Recursion]

183. Broadly, in the CIA/NSA street fight, Democrats prefer the NSA and Republicans the CIA

That's not cast in steel, but there's a pretty broad tendency of which of the two the two parties prefer.

[AnalystInParadise]

141. Why do you care

what Snowden believes? He could be a Neocon Fascist for all I care, if he shines a light on ILLEGAL FUCKING ACTIVITIES, that should be all that matters. Amazing how when the Rethugs use a litmus test some of us scream how unfair it is.......now you are doing the same thing. typical...........and not surprising

[VanillaRhapsody]

145. He could be Hitler for all you care!

[AnalystInParadise]

152. LMAO

It is so much fun watching you all refuse to confront the charges, instead it is the daily two minute hate on Snowden. He is a douchebag, so freaking what, did he expose crimes committed in our name? Yeah he kind of did, unless of course you think no crimes were committed, if that's the case then we have zeroed in on the problem, and it isn't Edward Snowden

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. But since he is not...

I have heard him compared to 3 Founding Fathers...MLK, Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Mandela ...and finally Jesus Christ....right here on DU.

So excuse me if I find his cult of personality here really funny and hypocritical considering who likes to throw epithets around about supporters of the Democratic President on a Democratic forum.

[AnalystInParadise]

161. He is none of those things

But he is a whistleblower.....Again let's stick to the facts, you do know what facts are, right?

[VanillaRhapsody]

168. But again...this surprise that he gets this kind of reaction on DU is really kind of weak sauce

when you know that occurred right here....of all places.

so excuse me while I barf...Comrade Snowden is no hero....and he deserves every nasty bathroom and lousy hotel room Russia has to offer him!

[AnalystInParadise]

173. I don't think he is a hero

but I thank him for what he did. Wrong is wrong, if it was was wrong from 2000-2008, it should be more wrong after 2008 since we hold ourselves to a higher standard, but continue making this about Snowden, it shows the weak sauce of your argument.

[VanillaRhapsody]

375. then maybe its not directed at you...

[MADem]

178. The CIA called him a thief when he worked in Europe, so long as we're in the Facts Business, here.

His supervisor placed derogatory comments about him in his personnel file:

WASHINGTON — Just as Edward J. Snowden was preparing to leave Geneva and a job as a C.I.A. technician in 2009, his supervisor wrote a derogatory report in his personnel file, noting a distinct change in the young man’s behavior and work habits, as well as a troubling suspicion.

The C.I.A. suspected that Mr. Snowden was trying to break into classified computer files to which he was not authorized to have access, and decided to send him home, according to two senior American officials. ...

The revelation of the C.I.A.’s derogatory report comes as Congress is examining the process of granting security clearances, particularly by USIS, a company that has performed 700,000 yearly security checks for the government. Among the individuals the company vetted were Mr. Snowden and Aaron Alexis, who the police say shot and killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard last month....

[AnalystInParadise]

179. That has what bearing

on the information he has leaked? I genuinely enjoy this attempt to talk about everything Snowden and nothing what he exposed. So please continue. You make me smile.

[MADem]

188. It goes to motive.

He was breaking into CIA files and trying to steal them at the very same time he was saying that leakers should be shot in the gonads.

It makes one question his sincerity, his purity of heart.

I'm ever so glad you are enjoying this conversation and it makes you smile.

It's so easy to please some people.

[NuclearDem]

195. And again, what does that have to do with what he released?

Motive has absolutely fuck all to do with whether his claims are valid or not.

[MADem]

217. As a response, I'll invite your attention to post 216. nt

[AnalystInParadise]

196. I don't question his purity of heart

he isn't pure....But he still revealed illegal actions by the IC. You want to make this about Snowden and not about what was disclosed, no matter what you say (and I am not trying to be rude) that weirds me out. You are more concerned about Snowden's motives than what is actually happening under a Democratic administration (and was also occurring during a Republican one)

[MADem]

216. Well, you want to make this about what's "illegal" and I'm not sold.

Everyone here suddenly has a seat on the Supreme Court, I could retort. We frankly have no idea if there's a National Security letter out there that--like it or not, and until Nine Old Farts in Robes say otherwise--makes what NSA was doing "legal."

Snowden is the guy who didn't avail himself of legal means to address his grievances, and instead stole classified material and ran to China and then Russia.

So yeah--it is about Snowden, because he lied, he stole, and he made some very odd choices.

One thing that has come out of all this is that we've discovered that EVERYONE--from France to Brazil to Germany--and of course The Usual Suspects China and Russia--do the exact same thing. It's not just Big Bad America playing at this game. I don't think Snowden quite understood that this would be an element of his revelations.

Now, adults are learning what I've been telling children for years now--when you put shit out on the internet, even if you don't attach your name to it, it's FOREVER. Never assume that you're anonymous, never assume that what you write on your Facebook or text on your phone is private. When you're in the electronic sphere, you should assume that you have no expectation of privacy.

I knew this back in the seventies, when SAVAK would routinely tap my phone. For my part, I was glad to have a phone that worked, and I learned to put up with the occasional snorty breathing of the idiot who would listen in on occasion.

The horse, on the issue of privacy, has left the barn. People can try to shield themselves from intrusion, but good luck with that. You want privacy? Unplug. Going on the internet is like going to the food court in your local mall--anyone can hear what you say, see what you're looking at. That's how I approach it, anyway. To expect that governments (and not just ours--others, as well) will do the "gentlemanly" thing and "not peek" when they have the capability is flat-out naive. The time for the world to have had this conversation was in 1980 or thereabouts; maybe even earlier.

As Carole King says, it's "Too Late, Baby."

[Capt. Obvious]

374. He was also compared to Hitler

You left that out

[brush]

175. Maybe you'll get this

It's simple. The domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing.

Revealing his own country's, and other countries' covert operations went way too far. That is the reason many of us are upset with Snowden. There are two parts to this story.

And just so you're clear, again, the domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing. Got that?

Broadcasting the intricacies of your own country's covert operations is not a decision to be made by a naive, non-elected, 29-year-old who then ran away. Some people call what he did sedition. Some call him a traitor. I'll just call him a defector for now.

It's that simple.

[AnalystInParadise]

177. Sorry

I have a lifetime in the IC from the military intelligence side. I am leaving the business this summer in small part due to these revelations. Now I worked in All Source instead of a Single INT, but there is nothing wrong about exposing the excesses of our IC. It disgusts me that the last 20 years of my life have led to this point where we see our own people as potential enemies on a global battlefield. I don't call him a traitor, not exactly a hero, but someone I am happy to have stepped forward.

AIP
96B/35F U.S. Army 1993-2013
Defense Contractor 2013-2014

[brush]

185. After a career in military intelligence Snowden's leaks are a revelation to you . . .

enough to make you want to retire?

That's sounds a little strange, I mean spys spy, have been since forever.

[AnalystInParadise]

190. 1. Yes it has made me want to retire

2. I am an All Source guy, I don't do single INT work, so yes it is a revelation
3. I have instructed at two Army Intel Schools and the number one rule is we do not collect on our own people, it is in most of the lesson plans and is taught to the 10 level students over and over again
4. These programs were part of Strategic Intel, my work is at the Tactical and Operational level, so yes THESE WERE HUGE revelations
5. And yes it is the final straw. Waterboarding was the first straw, the continued refusal to close Gitmo was straw number 2, the fact that we are collecting every day at every moment was the third straw, the executive order that allows for the killing of Americans was the final straw.
Nothing strange about that if you are an ethical moral person.

[OilemFirchen]

256. Funny, that.

It wasn't the warrantless wiretapping (actually illegal, as adjudicated). It wasn't rendition. It wasn't Gitmo.

No. What you and Ed now find deplorable is the continuation of, thus far, legal data mining and the sudden realization that we have spies. The horror that, despite Republican intransigence preventing the closing of Gitmo, specifically designed to prevent this President's avowed goal to shut that hellhole down, it's still there. The unfortunate reality that since 2001 we've been using armed drones.

Twenty years in the business and you never picked up a newspaper?

[AnalystInParadise]

287. As the technology gets better

and the sensors get better and I can see with my own two eyeballs what we were doing in more clarity than ever before, yes my mind changed. I am an All Source analyst, I will say it again, these specific collection advances we have made technologically are news to me and to any other All Source analyst. Our job is analysis, not knowing capability.

[ucrdem]

304. OilemFirchen shoots and scores.

Nailed it.

[MADem]

343. I have to agree.

Three pointer, too, from well outside the key. Nothing but net.

[randome]

47. There is something emotionally or even mentally wrong with the guy.

It's been theorized that his untreated epilepsy may have given him brain lesions. It's been theorized he has Asperger's Syhndrome.

I think something is wrong with him. After all, he said his job is finished yet he keeps arranging interviews.

A man does not desert his lover and family in order to 'reveal' that metadata is being collected (which we knew about since 2007) and to tell us that our country spies on other countries. At the same time, he apparently thought PRISM was a way for the NSA to basically download the Internet on a daily basis. And he's in IT? That is a red flag right there that something is not right.

Sorry for those who want to see him as a hero, I honestly think something is wrong with him and we will probably find out what it is before much longer.

Please proceed with the usual 'Authoritarian' insults at your earliest convenience.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

50. But, every message from Snowden is

a revelation that has never been heard before!! It's all bright and shiny new because Snowden says it.. and Putin has his back so that makes it even more special.

[randome]

54. 'Has his back'.

When I was a kid, a lazy uncle of mine who never had a steady job for his entire life paid me quarters to scratch his back after a long day of pretending to look for work.

I think I dodged a molestation bullet, there.

When you say 'has his back', it reminds me of shirtless Putin and then I'm thinking of Snowden scratching Putin's bare back after a hard day of pretending to be for Democracy.

Yuck!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Cha]

57. Wow..

sorry.. not literally but you make a very good metaphorical point. There's a lot of pretending going on there and they obviously have each others backs.

Sorry about your memory randome.

[randome]

59. Hey, thanks. It's just one of the tidbits of my past that makes me...interesting.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. Asperger syndrome isn't "something emotionally or mentally wrong".

If you think it is, you are ignorant, or perhaps stupid, or maybe both.

[randome]

61. 'Ignorant' would be my guess.

Sorry if I offended.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. I have been saying Aspergers all along...but not emotionally or mentally wrong

he just doesn't understand the world as everyone else sees it. He was used like kleenex by Greenwald.

[MADem]

218. I don't think you read what the poster wrote correctly.

The poster offered up a laundry list of potential issues that could have impacted his conduct, and selected from that list. The poster wasn't saying what you are accusing.

Responding with insults doesn't say much good about you, either.

Just sayin'....

[MADem]

233. You're really acquitting yourself well--not.

Telling people to "STFU" is rude and uncouth, and reflects poorly on you.

I have a very full understanding of autism and Asperger's, thank YOU very much.

Don't take your generalized frustrations out on people who haven't done you any harm. That's called stereotyping, something I'm quite familiar with--and that's not a very nice trait, either.

[Spider Jerusalem]

234. You're kind of a condescending twit.

Sorry, but the association of "Asperger Syndrome" with "I think something is wrong with him" is an ignorant stereotype. Let's try a little thought experiment here. What if, instead of Asperger Syndrome, it were "I think something is emotionally and mentally wrong with him it's been speculated that he's gay and in the closet". Would you see a problem with that formulation? Yes, or no?

Also, it's not your job to play civility police or tell anyone how they should respond. http://allisticntprivilege.tumblr.com/tone

[MADem]

235. And you're rude and condescending yourself.

It's not my job to play civility police, but it's not your job to play board boor, either--though it seems you've volunteered for the position and are eagerly working a double shift.

Let me take a page from your childish and nasty book, and urge you to take your "condescending twit" comments and stuff them.

You have a nice day.

[Spider Jerusalem]

236. Oh, I see

telling someone that conflating "Asperger Syndrome" with "something wrong with him" is wrong is somehow more problematic than making that sort of ignorantly stereotyped comment in the first place. Got it.

Do you also tell women, people of colour and LGBT people they really shouldn't be offended by casual misogyny, racism, and/or homophobia?

[MADem]

238. You can goad and bait with strawman questions all day.

I won't reward you with an answer. Poor you!

That's what you get for being rude, nasty, calling people names, and engaging via confrontation and accusation instead of having a civil conversation.

You are being deliberately obtuse, and then acting all hot-breathed and put-upon.

No sale. Get over yourself. Try being nicer, maybe more people will want to discuss issues with you.

[Spider Jerusalem]

239. The only "deliberately obtuse" person I see here is you, actually.

You've been told something is offensive. You've been told why it's offensive. And you double down on it because, apparently, I wasn't nice enough.

[MADem]

241. Are you getting the stimulation you apparently crave by

calling me names and hoping I'll get mad at you?

You haven't told me anything--you've flung insults at me and told me to "STFU."

You do realize your words aren't hidden on this board, I trust? Everyone can read the shit you write.

Now go on and have one of those nice days.

[Spider Jerusalem]

243. I'll point out that I'm only responding to you because you saw fit to call me out on something...

that was addressed to someone else in the first place. I wasn't talking to you. Now you're going to get in a snit because I'm responding to your unsolicited comments? And you presume I'm the one looking for "stimulation"? That's really funny.

And, on edit: I am autistic. I have a clinical diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome. From real doctors at one of the USA's leading university autism research facilities. As such, I am personally affected by people who have misinformed and ignorant ideas of what Asperger Syndrome is and find speculation regarding whether some quasi-public figure's behaviours are motivated by possible autism to be hurtful and unpleasant. Especially when it's framed as "this person clearly has something wrong with them". I am going to call people out on that. I am not going to apologise for finding it offensive. I am not looking for "stimulation". Nor do I much care how you respond, or indeed whether you do. I'd really prefer it if you hadn't; my comments weren't directed at you and are therefore none of your fucking business.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. I think its Aspergers....and that means that he doesn't really understand what is going on in

other people's heads....And that means that Greenwald took advantage of his naivete!

[Comrade Grumpy]

274. Give it a rest. You're only making yourself look petty. I'll leave it at that.

[msanthrope]

228. Schizophrenia....I think that's the elephant in the room. Having watched

his interviews, and as MADem pointed out upthread...given his revetting that would have taken place, I think Snowden knew he would have lost his security clearance given his medicals.

So he ran. You don't lose security clearance because of epilepsy....but you do because of mental illness. Why you are taking Depakote can only be lied about for so long.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

253. You're the fourth Bill Frist in this thread. Those law schools teach all sorts of things these days.

[GoCubsGo]

298. He's a Ron Paul-bot.

'Nuff said.

[Rex]

53. It didn't really matter what party was in office. It is real simple.

Kabuki Congress was going along fine...then somebody decided to throw an audible...FORCING, FORCING I SAY...a proud and very patriotic man next only to GOD and GEORGE WASHINGTON to MISSTATE something to the man that forced the audible. It perhaps was so bogus, that it caused everyone around the nation to pay attention?

What? Congress is scripted when it comes to the NSA? A general lied to Congress...oh sorry told the least possible lie he could say out of national security reasons?

MORAL - keep that shit in closed door sessions! You can really scare the sheeple when they hear a skip in the record!

[reddread]

56. He's out to wreck Obama's third term

the only explanation for all the outrage.

[Cha]

58. No, if anything.. the ratfucker is out to wreck the

2014 election.

Actually, like Bill Maher says.. "everything out of snowden's mouth is fuckin' nuts" so he could be just spewing lies for shits and giggles but I doubt it.

[reddread]

66. with Coulter's pubes between his teeth?

quote away...

[Cha]

73. Oh do proceed with your perverted ann coulter obsession.

[reddread]

230. keep quoting corporate paycheck cashing libertarians with vicious, fascist bed partners

known about it long before this link, we all have.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ann-coulter-refuses-to-trash-bill-maher-to-hannity-hes-a-true-and-loyal-friend/

[Cha]

273. "Everything out of Snowden's Mouth is Fuckin' Nuts" Ed has a god-complex-he's Putin's Ratfucker

[reddread]

278. take a bite

[Cha]

281. Poor Snowden.. he's Putin's Ratfucker now.. :(

[reddread]

282. wanna buy some Coulter memorabilia?

Maher is selling slightly soiled panties cheap enough.

[Cha]

291. Comrade Snowden is Happy As A Clam.. he only sings for Putin..

[reddread]

292. 23 recs

the HARD corps elite

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. He never dated or had sex with her....he has said so publicly

[Th1onein]

223. Yeah, because only OUR side winning matters. It doesn't matter what they stand for.

Sounds like Republican garbage to me.

[Cha]

269. Snowden is Putin's Ratfucker.

[underthematrix]

67. snowden is NOT a dissident. He is a foreign agent, like several GOP members of Congress

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

with funding from domestic terrorists like the kkkoch brothers and adelson, and FOX HATE News they were able to foment hate and fear of our gov't aka President Obama, his family and his leadership team. They then used snowden to foment hate and fear from the left, which seems to have worked on a small group of emoprogs. Recall, snowden's bacground was questioned by the NSA but the contractor he worked for pushed until it went through. He lacked the education and work experience to work on NSA projects. Further snowden by his own admission said he wanted to work for the NSA so he could expose their highly secret and targeted programs. That sounds like a foreign agent to me. Also, he had help from someone inside the agency the NSA had contracted. Pay attention because it will eventually come out. Because PBO's administration is a LEAK-FREE ZONE we will probably not learn who those individuals were until they are carted off to prison.

[ucrdem]

226. Yep.

I think you're pretty close to the mark.

[Recursion]

327. Foreign? Not sure. Pretty sure Langley is pretty happy about what he did, though

We're going to wind up with a much weaker NSA and, because of that, a much stronger CIA because of this.

You know, the CIA, the only intelligence agency to actually directly hire Snowden at any point. Hmm...

[Ikonoklast]

340. Oh, come on now! All the Skull and Bonesmen, oops, sorry, I meant Wiffenpoofs running Langley

have never, ever been jealous of any other intelligence-gathering branch of this government, military or civilian, nor have they ever used their considerable political influence and veiled threats to try and shut them down or hobble them!


In any way!

Ever!


They have never, ever, ever blackmailed, oops, lobbied politicians in order to retain power, ever!


They would just hate to see a rival intelligence agency fall on hard times!

[Armstead]

76. THIS ISN'T FUCKING AMERICAN IDOL

We're not voting for the coolest person or the most likable.

It's also not The Bachelor or The Bachelorette.

We're not voting for someone we want to go out with and maybe marry.

This is about freedom, The Constitution, civil liberties, the right to privacy...and all that stuff.

If the person (or people) who bring public attention to -- and spark public discussion -- about abuses of those principles by our government, and those revelations are true, then it really doesn't matter whether you want to be friends with them, admire them or agree with them on issues.

This bullshit reality-show personality stuff is a distraction, whether it is intentional or simply misplaced partisan loyalty.

[Egalitarian Thug]

98. It's all American Idol, now. That's all they care about. n/t

[ProSense]

114. The Snowden Christmas message was a nice touch, though.

[NuclearDem]

116. Speak of the devil.

[ProSense]

118. Blah!

[NuclearDem]

121. Don't you ever get tired rolling on the floor laughing all the time?

I'd imagine you'd at least get some serious rugburn.

[ProSense]

122. No, I mean

why should only the kewl people have fun?

[Armstead]

120. As usual you manage to trivialize the issue

I don't really give a rats ass about his Chrstmas message.

He can strip down buck naked and moon the camera for all I care.

[ProSense]

124. "He can strip down buck naked and moon the camera for all I care. "

Why so angry? The OP is an opinion. You responded by yelling about irrelevant stuff in an attempt to "trivialize" an opinion you disagree with.

No more self-righteousness.

Kick, "for pissing off the right people."

[Armstead]

237. You bring out my self-righeteousness with your condescending crap

[ProSense]

240. Please

"You bring out my self-righeteousness with your condescending crap"

...don't blame me for your "self-righeteousness" and "condescending crap": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467097#post76

[Armstead]

245. I should amend to...

you and others who trivialize issues too often by taking it down to condescending distractions of personality.

[liberal_at_heart]

156. another righteous rant. It's sad to see so many defend bad policy just because we have a

democratic president.

[bobduca]

394. Public Relations Cos Play

[Yo_Mama]

83. Because we all thought this administration would walk the NSA insanity back,

and when that didn't happen and instead it got worse, all hope for change was gone.

If an administration headed by an ex constitutional law professor doubles down on this sort of thing, it's more likely that you have a J Edgar Hoover situation.

And this administration DID double down - it's been worse, and the prosecutions of NSA whistleblowers were intense. Start from Drake and go on - the secrecy and abuse of power got worse, not better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake

[randome]

107. Drake was initially pursued by the Bush Administration.

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

In 2010, a grand jury (you know, a collection of ordinary citizens) indicted him. In 2011, charges were dropped. (Admittedly because of a recent 60 minutes story on the matter.)

Drake was supposedly the 'inspiration' for Snowden to steal documents related to the PRISM program -which he got wrong, by the way.

So Drake is hardly the 'poster boy' of the government 'getting worse' in its treatment of whistleblowers.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Madam Mossfern]

105. But didn't we

kind of, sort of know about this stuff going on already, since the adoption of the Patriot Act? Did we always do this kind of stuff, and don't countries spy on each other; even 'friends'. Was I just being paranoid before he made his revelations?

I guess we didn't have specifics, but then again neither did our enemies. Even though our allies probably knew we were mining information from them (from their spying on us) they need to appear outraged to keep the charade going on.

[ProSense]

111. Kick for

"pissing off all the right people"

[Cha]

128. But, Eddie(can I call him Eddie?).. is in the Free World NOW!

[AnalystInParadise]

136. Well

we seem to be trying hard to catch the Russians....you know killing teenagers who are American citizens just because their dad might be a terrorist......seems like we are becoming just like Russia. But you will do anything to make this about Snowden, because you know how morally bankrupt this is, how it makes our guy look bad so of course you will kill the messenger to preserve our guy. I am amused by the Snowden hatred and refusal to talk about the issues. Seems we criticize the Rethugs all the time for making it personal and not about the issues. At least the Snowden situation lets us see who really cares about the country and who really cares about the Party, or the person.

[brush]

181. There's a dicotomy to the Snowden story that seems to escape some people

It's simple. The domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing.

Revealing his own country's, and other countries' covert operations went way too far. That is the reason many of us are upset with Snowden.

And just so you're clear, again, the domestic info gathering reveal was a good thing. Got that?

Broadcasting the intricacies of your own country's covert operations is not a decision to be made by a naive, non-elected, 29-year-old who ran away. Some people call what he did sedition. Some call him a traitor. I'll just call him a defector for now. And more will come out about this.

It's that simple.

[DebJ]

203. I agree 100%!!!! n/t

[Cha]

270. Hey Mahalo brush for explaining the dicotomy of the Snowden saga.

Yours is the kind explanation.. I call it a ratfucker with a god-complex.

[AnalystInParadise]

133. It is amazing

all the hypocrites here that want to talk shit about Snowden and ignore the fact that we are doing all these illegal things. But it's our guy so he must be protected at all costs, or whatever other bullshit they spew to help themselves sleep at night.

[Broward]

244. Yeah, so much for the Constitution.

It's astonishing how quickly so many are willing to cede their constitutional rights to protect their hero politicians. First with Bush and now with Obama. The worshipping mindset on both sides is one and the same.

[davidpdx]

140. You aren't suppose to be asking those kinds of questions

They are above your pay grade. Don't question Snowden, he is a god. He borrowed the data spontaneously and only found it after he went on vacation. It's not his fault for godsakes. We should be kissing his feet for saving us from the terrible person in the Oval Office.

[AnalystInParadise]

143. LMAO

if the person in the Oval Office is allowing illegal things to take place, then yeah we kind of how a need to know. Country first, or least it is supposed to be.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

164. Better question. Why did what's going on in the NSA go on under a Democratic regime?

And, why didn't "good Democrats" blow the whistle rather than Snowden? Presumably the NSA has at least a few Democrats among the fascists running the operations.

[OilemFirchen]

259. "Regime"?

Nice one, Rushbo.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

260. Regime. Those in power. Government.

[OilemFirchen]

261. Modern usage

While the word regime originates as a synonym for any form of government, modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship. Webster's definition states that the word regime refers simply to a form of government, while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one". Nowadays the political use of the word regime is most commonly applied to any government that is most of the time not democratically elected and imposes strict and often arbitrary rules and laws on the people that are, because of the undemocratic nature of the government, non-negotiable. English language press journalists deploy it selectively to cue their news audiences to view particular foreign governments negatively. For example, in a September 1, 2013 news story, Huffington Post reporter Christina Wilkie refers to the Syrian government as the "regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad".

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

272. Seems apt to me, considering what the NSA does at the behest of the regime.

Unless you consider spying on its own people and pursuing whistle blowers "democratic".

[OilemFirchen]

280. And the circle is complete.

Thanks, Rushbo.

[Orsino]

389. Rephrased for those with frail sensibilities:

Why did what's going on in the NSA go on under a Democratic administration?

[Recursion]

182. On that note: why not a word about the CIA, which Snowden was actually an agent for?

Why only about the NSA, which he was just a contractor for?

[Th1onein]

225. I get so tired of these bullcrap accusations.

Nothing underpinning them. Just spew them out, and maybe something will stick.

[Recursion]

231. Yup. I see Snowden's CIA work has gone straight down the memory hole

Just like they wanted it to.

[Th1onein]

317. Why don't you supply a link to underpin your accusations?

[Recursion]

322. What "accusation"? It was in the Guardian's profile of him.

Gotta love that memory hole

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-intelligence-leak-nsa-contractor-extract

In mid-2006, Snowden landed a job in IT at the CIA. He was rapidly learning that his exceptional IT skills opened all kinds of interesting government doors. "First off, the degree thing is crap, at least domestically. If you 'really' have 10 years of solid, provable IT experience… you CAN get a very well-paying IT job," he wrote online in July 2006.

In 2007, the CIA sent Snowden to Geneva on his first foreign tour. Switzerland was an awakening and an adventure. He was 24. His job was to maintain security for the CIA's computer network and look after computer security for US diplomats. He was a telecommunications information systems officer. He also had to maintain the heating and air-con.

Not only was he a CIA direct-hire (ie, "agent&quot , he got a diplomatic-cover assignment in Geneva (something very sought after, for obvious reasons) for his first tour.

[Th1onein]

325. He was hardly a spook in the correct sense of the word.

Please, try not to lie. I don't have time to bother with those sorts of tactics. Most people here don't.

[Recursion]

329. Yes, a CIA direct-hire with diplomatic cover is precisely what a "spook" is

Like, literally, that's what "spook" means. Someone sent to a foreign country under false credentials (his passport and visa would have accredited him as a Department of State employee; same black passport I have) to engage in clandestine operations.

[Th1onein]

333. STOP LYING. It does your argument no good.

This is what the Guardian article had to say about Snowden's work with the CIA: "In 2007, the CIA sent Snowden to Geneva on his first foreign tour. Switzerland was an awakening and an adventure. He was 24. His job was to maintain security for the CIA's computer network and look after computer security for US diplomats. He was a telecommunications information systems officer. He also had to maintain the heating and air-con."

This directly conflicts with your LIE that Snowden was somehow a spy for the CIA. If you continue to LIE, I am going to put you on Ignore.

[Recursion]

341. That is exactly being a spy for the CIA. You should really learn a little more about this

What do you think spies do? They mostly spend their time frustrating other spies' efforts.

Diplomatic cover = spy. That's what that literally means.

[Th1onein]

347. Spies are often responsible for the heating and air conditioning systems. Righhhhht!

Geez. This is getting funny.

And, by the way, the LIE didn't fly. There is nothing in that article that says he had diplomatic cover.

[Recursion]

348. Snowden wasn't responsible for HVAC, but I don't think you understand "diplomatic cover"

Snowden was responsible for computer security for CIA assets in Geneva. (State has people that do that for State. You're actually arguing with a low-level one right now.) He was given diplomatic cover. This means the Department of State gave him a diplomatic passport and falsely claimed he was working for them rather than the CIA. (Think about it for a second: when he was applying for his visa for Geneva do you think he told the Swiss consulate wherever he was, "well, you see, I work for the CIA..."?) State may have said he did a number of things, including HVAC, but the CIA doesn't send people to fix ventilation systems. General Services is a pretty common place to stash diplomatic cover people; it's kind of a running joke in all diplo communities. "He mops the floor", etc.

That is what "diplomatic cover" means, and the people who receive it are known as "spies".

[Th1onein]

363. Why don't you just admit that you're wrong?

Snowden wasn't a spy, in any sense of the word, and the article that you cite doesn't support your allegations. I don't think it even says anything about diplomatic cover, either.

[Recursion]

369. LOL!

Yes, *that's* the problem!

Have fun, kid!

[Th1onein]

372. And when you can't admit you're wrong, what do you do?

Make silly excuses blaming others who won't buy your bullshit.

[Marr]

361. It's getting *ridiculous*.

For some, the "truth" seems to be 'whatever's most convenient at any given moment'.

[Th1onein]

364. I think we've heard it all now.

It's getting old.

[msanthrope]

314. Um..he actually did work for the CIA. Really. nt

[Scootaloo]

187. Actually, it doesn't matter.

And this notion of "his politics don't exactly line up with my index card, so everything he says needs to be dismissed!" is - rather ironically - something I expect out of the average Bush supporter.

What's important is neither the message nor the messenger - but the information itself. Is it false or not? Has it been edited? Okay, where's the edit, what's missing or added?

[JoeyT]

192. So Snowden is a hypocrite for holding different opinions when Bush and Obama did things?

Do you have any idea how wildly ironic a statement that is to make? Especially here? Especially given the people that are thrilled with this thread are some of the worst offenders?

If Snowden had come forward during the Bush years he'd have been almost universally cheered here. The only reason he isn't is because any policy is good as long as it's a policy Obama supports. So we got boxes in garages and stripper girlfriends and never loved him anyway and red baiting that would've done Ronald Reagan proud.

[Marr]

276. +1, excellent point.

It's so hypocritical, it's actually funny.

[cherokeeprogressive]

207. MOOT MOOT! Sounds like a horn, doesn't it? Fog horn? Train horn? SEE POST #5.

MOOT MOOT!

See POST #5.

YMMV? Your Mileage May Vary? Fucking nope. When it comes to stupid shit like this... my mileage is ALWAYS the same.

See fucking POST #5 in this thread.

[brush]

212. As for post #5 . . .

he was a Libertarian, shoot-whistle-blowers-in-the-balls-for-revealing-classified-info (his own words) advocate before 2009.

He seems to have experienced a "Damascus Road" conversion when we got a black president as he suddenly became a whistle blower himself.

Guess that balls-shooting stuff didn't appeal to him then so he ran.

Kind of hard to pin him down as to who he really is wouldn't you say? I say he's definitely conflicted. The revelations of domestic info gathering was good on him, then he goes and screws it up by revealing the intricacies of our, and other nations' international covert operations, as I said, conflicted.

And naive. Who else would think it's a good idea to reveal details of his own country's international spying?

Not a good thing, maybe sedition, maybe even treason, definitely he's a defector though.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

210. Interesting stuff about Snowden. Looks like I would not care for him at all as a person.

Still, even if his revelations were not new to some, they were new to those who didn't know about the things he revealed. His previously expressed hatred for whistleblowers is appalling to me, but it does not influence me to hate whistleblowers, even him.

[arthritisR_US]

219. The title of your OP is your answer. nT

[ucrdem]

227. Snowball's leaks are calculated to inflict maximum damage to PBO.

He first hit the headlines while Obama was here in So Cal, sweating out a summit with the new Chinese president Xi, and looking the fool because cyber-security was his top action item and Snowball was making a spectacle of himself in HK peddling US intel to the Chinese. Needless to say Xi got the best of that exchange.

[sendero]

229. My Mileage Varies A Lot....

...... these idiotic smear pieces are getting stupider as we go and are frankly insulting to the intelligence of anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

[quaker bill]

246. Because during the Bush* Admin, he would just have been a Terrorist?

They did not use polite terms like "dissident".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

252. i am pretty sure OBama promised us all a more transparent government

and then didn't deliver, which probably made someone like Snowden feel that there was no hope of this info coming out legitimately

[Jamastiene]

254. I have been thinking a lot about that too.

It must be one of those IOKIYAR things. Lots of people are like that. They are fine with what the fuck ever Republicans do, but let a Democrat do it and it's an abomination (their wording). It's the only answer I can come up with. I've heard the guy is a Libertarian, but let's face it, many Libertarians, not all, are really Republicans in disguise.

[BlueCheese]

263. I suppose a counter-question might be ...

Why did it take a Democratic president for so many people to support state surveillance?

[OilemFirchen]

265. FDR?

It was 1935 that the FBI officially became part of the DoJ.

They are, as you should know, the agency tasked with domestic surveillance.

[Jamastiene]

284. It was also his authorization that led to the Japanese American internments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

If a Republican had done that, Democrats would have been pissed off about it. If a Democrat does it, many Democrats are fine with it. It goes the same for the other side of the political aisle. Anything the Republicans do is fine with the Republicans.

That brand loyalty without ethical consideration is the reason this country is in this mess to begin with. We need more people thinking outside JUST their brand and solving problems ethically instead of just going along with whatever the current CIC (if he is of the same "brand" as them) is doing, whether it is right or wrong. I'm not saying Democrats should vote Republican. I'm saying Democrats should vote for Democrats who more closely match our values, regardless of what we are told is "possible" or "pragmatic."

The same should really go for Republicans. Surprisingly, there are Republicans who can be worked with on some issues, when their goals match ours. Unfortunately, the opposite Republicans are the ones being worked with, all too often. Instead of a Democrat caving to Republicans who refuse to bend the slightest bit, which seems to be the current trend, we should instead find Republicans who actually share our values on individual issues. There are some out there, but instead we repeatedly cave to the most right wing bullies in the GOP. It's a shame, really.

[OilemFirchen]

285. "If a Republican had done that, Democrats would have been pissed off about it."

Actually, no.

Getting a bit weary of bumper sticker historians, frankly.

[Jamastiene]

279. That is a good question too.

I've been asking that one already for a while now. It seems like each side has people who will support anything as long as the brand is their brand of choice. It's all marketing, when you really stop and think about it.

[riderinthestorm]

283. He wasn't hired by Booz Allen until 2009 so he had no access

to the kind of information that lead him to change his mind, until after he was hired.

[ucrdem]

302. Screwy bio and hard to believe in any recension.

I can't figure out what the heck he's up to or who he's working for but if he comes back and gets a job at a school book depository I'm going to start worrying.

[riderinthestorm]

310. I don't think anyone's screwed up his bio. Do you have links to that accusation? nt

[ucrdem]

311. Um, you just responded to it. nt

[riderinthestorm]

332. You're the who said his bio is screwed up. Give me a link to that nt

[ucrdem]

335. "5 ways NSA leaker Edward Snowden's story isn't holding up"

http://theweek.com/article/index/245492/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens-story-isnt-holding-up

any time

[Recursion]

352. I still can't wrap my head around the Geneva posting

An initial posting... to Geneva... with diplomatic cover? That's one of the most sought-after postings there is. And then he gets a negative eval with issues of questionable INFOSEC, and winds up at BAH? It's just weird.

[Recursion]

323. He said his time as a CIA agent in Geneva changed his mind

When he saw the CIA use immoral means to pressure a banker into cooperating with them. You know, a banker, the exact person people on this board keep saying the government should increase pressure on.

[ucrdem]

339. Interesting theory. My take on it:

It's entirely possible that Snowden working for an out-of-favor faction of the Bush-Cheney old guard, i.e. the Carlyle BAH crowd, but it's hard to imagine that after having gotten rid of Petreaus and installed Brennan, a personal friend and confidante, Brennan would openly fork the President and keep his job. But a rogue faction à la Alan Dulles after 1961, sure, very possible.

[Cha]

362. Boom! "The payoff of the Snowden affair for Putin and the Russians.."

"The payoff of the Snowden affair for Putin and the Russians thus far has been substantial. Just as the Kremlin’s human rights reputation, already woeful under Putin, has spiraled downward, it is able to swoop in to rescue an American political outlaw, supposedly persecuted by the Obama administration. The dissident journalist Masha Gessen has observed, “The Russian propaganda machine has not gotten this much mileage out of a U.S. citizen since Angela Davis’s murder trial in 1971.”

Poor little Snowden.

Snowden is Putin's Propaganda Puppet..

[Cha]

368. Because snowden's a libertarian asshole in the same vein as ron paul and sonny rand.

[nilesobek]

370. Granted the fundamental idea of privacy is important.

The racist accusation has thin evidence except for the timing of the President's tenure.

The real winners in this debacle are those dividing the Democratic Party. Has the spying revelations really changed anyone's life that much? As pointed out be other posters, we've all known they have been trying to realize total information awareness since the times of Bill Clinton and Wesley Clark.

Its my overall accusation that despite this memory hole gap, that focusing on this and making it more of a major deal in regular people's lives only serve to divide and conquer what has been a Democratic Party on a nice roll these last 8 years.

If the machine, the runaway train Bush unleashed could not be brought under control by the President, can we hardly blame him for that?

[Capt. Obvious]

371. This is a shoddy OP on your part

The piece you link to also savages Greenwald and Assange, yet you just focused on just Snowden.

Then again, you can get two more flaming OP's from one piece.

[Th1onein]

373. These guys don't care.

They want to take our attention away from what needs to be done.

[mike_c]

376. pfft....

I mean seriously. But extra points for managing to cite Ron Paul, too!

How about this: the arc of Snowden's life coincidentally brought him into a position to see the government's perfidy and to act in response while Obama was the particular perfidious president in office.

[Oilwellian]

381. The better question would be...

Why are these crimes being committed under a Democratic administration?

[nadinbrzezinski]

388. Better question, why are these crimes committed against the people of the US

by ANY administration?

Why is this acceptable if my guy is doing it, but not the other guy?