Re: Edward Snowden... Let's Make It Simple

[WillyT]

Do you think the Edward Snowden revelations regarding the NSA were, in total...

A net positive, or a net negative...

For the American People and the people of the world ?

I did NOT say for the U.S. Government... which in many ways I don't trust, and does not necessarily represent the interests of the American people, or the people of the world.

24 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	A net positive.
	22 (92%)
	A net negative.
	2 (8%)
	Obligatory fudge.
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[F4lconF16]

1. What kinda fudge are we talking, though?

I'm more a brownies person myself: http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/2121648/bestever-chocolate-raspberry-brownies

[MineralMan]

2. I'm going to pass until I see how some specific DUers vote.

My opinions are always influenced by them.

[sabrina 1]

5. I make up my own mind about issues. We

liberals are annoyingly independent when it comes to the important issues that affect this country.

Do you vote in order to oppose certain individuals then rather than on the issue itself?

[MineralMan]

7. Oh, my...

You took that literally? Thanks for the reply. Really...

[sabrina 1]

8. Yes, actually, I did since I saw nothing to say it wasn't serious.

[MineralMan]

17. No, actually. You don't know me at all,

despite our frequent, usually unpleasant interactions. If you were paying attention you would have known that I was being sarcastic. I'm am a person of definite beliefs, and I never hide them. What I see is that you pay little attention to those with whom you interact. I'll keep that in mind in the future, should I happen to reply directly to you, rather than to someone else.

[sabrina 1]

19. I know you only by your writings on the internet. Which is how most people are known on

internet forums.

I don't find our exchanges 'unpleasant'. Why do you find internet exchanges to be unpleasant?

We are all people of definite beliefs.

And I never hide mine, nor ever have, nor ever pretended to be anything but a Liberal Democrat. Because I would not find it possible to do so.

And I pay a great deal of attention to those to those with whom I interact.

[WillyT]

22. Ah... The Voice Of Reason And Moderation... That Never Gets Angry

As someone said here years ago...

If you're not angry... you're not paying attention.

[MineralMan]

23. Oh, I'm angry, but about different things than you,

apparently.

[WillyT]

28. We Might Agree On Many Things, I Suspect, But...

I could give you hundreds of reasons I'm angry...

But like most kids and adults...

I detest playing in a game that is rigged, and where the referees are bought off.

Just to start.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. She didn't understand that you weren't being truthful. I believe she took your words

...at face value. As for me, I knew you were just kidding around, because I'm aware that you like to play different roles on the Internet. I only know this because you chose to make it public in GD and in your journal. How's euphonium practice coming along?

[MineralMan]

26. Well, I'm glad you understood.

I'm improving daily, thanks. My sight reading is still an issue, though. Going from woodwind background to a brass instrument is more challenging than I expected in that regard. But I'm coming along. Soon, I'll be ready to join a community band. How's your photography doing?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

27. Thanks for asking.

I recently put my toe into off-camera flash portrait photography. It's a new and sometimes bewildering world for me. But I felt like a kid on Christmas morning when I discovered that with off-camera flash, you can expose the subject and the background completely independent of one another.

[MineralMan]

30. Yup.

When I was doing magazine photography for woodworking magazines, I often had to do product-style shots of completed projects. Multiple slaved flashes, umbrellas and all that stuff. Interesting, but complicated. I was glad to find another direction, really. Still, I have some covers framed in my office. I sold all of my equipment in the 80s. Don't miss it.

[Number23]

13. !

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. A positive but --

it appears the revelations are only resonating with certain people. Apparently mass spying on citizens and lying about it is A-OK with more Americans (and liberals in particular) than I would have thought. I did watch "Citizen Four" and came away with even more respect for what he did.

[Dawgs]

6. Interesting. I watched "Citizen Four" and came away very unimpressed.

It was very disappointing.

[sabrina 1]

14. I just saw Citizen 4 and it was excellent, removed all the shameful lies told by those who have so

hide. Definitely was worthy of the two Oscars it received.

If only we had a free press the minute Bush/Cheney were caught starting this massive spying on the American people, it would have ended.

But we don't, so we have to rely on those willing to go through hell in order to bring the facts to the American people.

[zappaman]

15. It did not win two Oscars, it won one.

You're math is off...again.
Kinda like when you claimed 5% was "approx 10%".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6462196

[neverforget]

20. You keeping track of people?

creepy

[zappaman]

21. No, doing math.

[Major Hogwash]

24. KA-BOOM!!!

Man, that math thingy is hard!!!!!!!!!

[LittleBlue]

4. This is the question that the Snowden haters always avoid

They used to pretend that it was negative, but they've become far less bold after the Pulitzer and Academy Award.

Some are MIC-supporters, but most are just party loyalists who are offended that Obama was embarrassed and exposed for his NSA spying. Anything involving Obama is personal for them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Very positive. Now the people know some of what their government does.

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

[WillyT]

10. Thank You For Those...

[gcomeau]

11. They had the potential to be a net positive.

But that's not how things went.

[sabrina 1]

16. Actually it went very well. Snowden has not been silenced as Manning was for one thing, the public

has been informed, which is what should happen in any democracy when their Government is acting secretly against their interests.

I cannot think of one negative that ever comes from exposing wrong doing by the Govt and its agencies.

Secret courts, secret trials, secret MASS warrants, these things do not support democracy.

[gcomeau]

36. I think you may be confusing...

...impact among the members of a (relatively at least) paying attention political discussion forum and the impact on the nation as a whole.

Effectively, zip all has come out of this on the positive side if you get out of the DU bubble and look around the country.

There is some small chance they may actually make some rollbacks to the Patriot Act before re-authorization this time around, we'll see, but barring that it's really hard to think of any significant positive impact this has actually had.


As for those negatives, if all Snowden had done was "expose wrongdoing by the Govt" then I'd agree with you. No downside. But that most certainly isn't all he did. He didn't just grab a bunch of documents that showed some people doing bad things. He grabbed THOUSANDS of pages of documents that had everything from actual shady programs to legitimate foreign intelligence activities in them and just gave all of it up because he couldn't be bothered to screen it all himself first. He went to Hong Kong and *personally* gave the Chinese specific targets the NSA was penetrating in their networks. ON PURPOSE. That is not "whistleblowing" that is espionage. Information on how the NSA was penetrating ISIS got let out in the open by the Times.

Damage. Was. Done.

Turning a blind eye to that isn't treating the subject honestly.

[sabrina 1]

37. I am confusing nothing. For one thing, unlike in Manning's case, the Government, who attempted to

lie initially AND deny, not knowing what evidence Snowden had against them, were forced to admit that 'reforms are needed' once the information began to come out in the press.

Nowhere near enough has yet been done, but that acknowledgement alone, was a victory for ALL the Whistle Blowers who came before Snowden, but were silenced, persecuted, had their lives destoryed and like Manning, silenced and jailed.

I could post videos of the first reactions of Government officials who outright lied, and then when caught in the lies, the acknowledgements, weak and reluctant as they were, that some 'reforms' are necessary.

Such as NEEDING WARRANTS before delving into innocent people's private affairs.

As if that was not the law ALREADY.

And if you think people are not paying attention, a majority of those polled view Snowden as a Whistle Blower, NOT as the government worked so hard to portray him as, a traitor.

Of course if you support the government violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens, you will probably work hard to believe that none of this matters and attempt to dismiss it.

As for what documents Snowden had, it's pretty revealing that the NSA were unable to determine that. National Security? Really?

Snowden did not release any documents to the public. He used the press to vet and decide what was relevant and what might be harmful, since he, as he has stated repeatedly, could not do it himself.

His decision to seek political asylum was the right one, considering the treatment of Whistle Blowers in this country as it is today.

And I imagine when more Whistle Blowers emerge they will be forced to do the same thing, seek political asylum elsewhere so that they are NOT silenced, or tortured, as Chelsea Manning was.

[gcomeau]

38. Show me the reforms actually happening,.

Then you can claim positive impact. Until then lip service is lip service. Like I said, maybe they'll actually roll back the Patriot Act a teeny tiny bit this re-authorization. We'll see.

"Snowden did not release any documents to the public. "

Releasing classified material to the press is releasing it to the public. Trying to claim otherwise is childish spin. The whole point of giving that information to the press is so the press WILL PUBLICIZE IT. That's what the press is for.

That's like someone saying they didn't tell the public anything, the television did. They just spoke to a camera! The television station is the one that went and played the tape on the air! Who knew such a thing would happen!?!?!?

You can't have it both ways, declaring Snowden's a hero for releasing all this information and being this amazing whistleblower and then as soon as it's time to deal with the downside declaring he didn't release anything and bears no responsibility.


He personally identified specific NSA intelligence targets inside China to the South China Morning Post. That is the exact same thing as just handing them to the Chinese government. Pretending otherwise is juvenile.

[sabrina 1]

40. What are you talking about? First you claim that Snowden 'squirmed' when asked about

releasing the information. You still have not provided a link to the 'squirm'. Then you criticize him FOR answering the question.

You must despise Ellsberg also. He released his info to the press, as ALL WHISTLE BLOWERS DO.

And the SC ruled that the press, in that case the NYT, could not be silenced when the public's NEED TO KNOW overcame the Government's NEED TO HIDE information.

It was a definitive ruling FOR Whistle Blowers and set a precedent that stands today.

So what should Whistle Blowers do with information of corruption in government if NOT got to the press?

Snowden is confident, see again the SC RULING ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KNOW AND THE PRESS'S right to publish what they need to know, that he DID THE RIGHT THING, by going to the press who HAS the SC ruling behind them to publish leaked documents when the public's right to know is at stake.

What is hilarious is how those who are anti-Snowden/Whistle Blowers are so confused now and contradicting each other.

Eg, I was told by an anti-Snowden/Whistle Blower, that REFORMS HAVE BEEN MADE. So I should not be concerned anymore.

NOW, you are contradicting someone who is on your side, and claiming NO REFORMS HAVE BEEN MADE.

Lol, the reforms made are that the NSA cannot access the data they have collected without a warrant.

And that reform alone, confirms Snowden's claims, that they were doing so WITHOUT A WARRANT until now.

[gcomeau]

41. I pointed you at the exact time stamp of the squirming elsewhere.

But here it is here as well. And I didn't criticize him FOR answering the question. I criticized what his bullshit answer was. There's a difference. And you may notice Oliver recognized it was a bullshit answer too because he had to call him on it more than once. Which is what caused all the squirming.



From the video at the Rolling stone link, are 19:30 through 21:40

--Oliver asks how many documents that he gave up he actually read.

--Snowden says he "evaluated" all of them.

--Oliver knows that is an evasion and repeats the question. He READ every single one?

--Snowden starts to squirm a little. Says he"understands what he turned over".

--Oliver spots the evasion again. Points out there is a difference between "understanding" it and actually reading all the information before he gave it up.

--Snowden now squirming more. Admitting he understands the concern. No longer trying to claim he actually read it all.

--Now Oliver appears to be getting a little annoyed at the evasions. Snarkily declares the last thing you want to do when handing over thousands of classified documents from the NSA is actually read them.


--Snowden goes on the retreat, pulls out the extremely well used bullshit "In my defense, I'm not handling anything, the journalists are" defense. (Yeah, because he handed them everything. He still owns that. And if you want to know where to find squirming, using the phrase "in my defense" in an interview is a pretty damn good signpost to lead you there)

--And then Oliver keeps on him. Yeah, he handed off highly technical intelligence data to journalists who don't have the capability of evaluating it as well as he can and then just let them loose with it. Gave it to less qualified people. And then washed his hands of the consequences of anything they do with it.

--Snowden declares "yeah, but they know it's important to get it right"

--Oliver hits him with "yeah, but they screwed it up" (leaked ISIS data). Snowden at least acknowledges after a bit of pressing that that was a fuck up (so he's more capable than some posters here of acknowledging damage was done I'll give him that much) but then he again tries to shrug off any personal responsibility for it happening and simply declares that oh well, in journalism mistakes happen. As if he had nothing to do with creating the conditions for that mistake to occur.

-Oliver calls him on that too (see, this is a big part of what makes it a fantastic interview. Oliver isn't taking Snowden's "I bear no responsibility for anything bad that happens" bullshit spin). Says point blank he handed over all this dangerous information and knew he was doing it and he's responsible for the consequences.

And then Snowden squirms some more... while Oliver keeps on him and Snowden just keeps trying to deflect all personal responsibility.

[Cheese Sandwich]

12. Really positive because before we had no idea what was going on

It might be a major issue in the elections too depending on who all is running.

[arely staircase]

18. years before that can be answered nt

[Sienna86]

29. Watching John Oliver's piece..shocked at the ignorance of Americans

Maybe people were caught off guard...was depressing to see people not know who wasEd Snowden. How do people learn about what is going on in the world now that most don't read a newspaper?

[randome]

35. Why would we care that the NSA monitors foreign communications? It's their job.

It's the digital age where everything is transmitted simultaneously. How would the NSA go about monitoring only communications between two foreign individuals without also inadvertently picking up non-foreign communications? It's impossible.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Blue_Tires]

31. I'll defer judgement until it all comes out

and I finally get some answers for my questions...

[MisterP]

32. an absolute as well as a net positive

[WillyT]

33. That's What I Was Thinking...

[WillyT]

34. Morning Kick !!!

[Orsino]

39. I think we should stop trying to make it simple.

I don't know that he is a hero or ogre, but I do know he is the reason our representatives have been forced to address excessive government intrusion and secrecy.

That has to be a big net positive.