Snowden: the case for prosecution (The Economist | Jan 10th 2014)

[struggle4progress]

... Mr Snowden has done some good. He has highlighted the NSA’s sloppy security procedures and the danger of “contractorisation”. He has stoked a necessary debate about the nature of meta-data ... But these benefits are far outweighed by the harm. Here are a few examples of such disclosures:

* how the NSA intercepts e-mails, phone calls and radio transmissions of Taliban fighters in Pakistan; an operation to gauge the loyalties of CIA recruits in Pakistan;
* e-mail intercepts regarding Iran;
* global tracking of cell-phone calls to (as the Washington Post naively put it) “look for unknown associates of known intelligence targets by tracking people whose movements intersect” ...

Indeed, many of the disclosures seem directly aimed at damaging American diplomacy, or harming American allies. One bunch of leaks concerned Swedish intelligence co-operation with America against Russia. Another concerned similar operations involving Norway. Nobody has explained the public interest in revealing how democracies spy on dictatorships. The answer—as far as can be discerned from Glenn Greenwald, the American lawyer in Brazil who is the custodian of at least some of the cache of stolen material, and the most articulate public defender of their release—is that it is inherently shameful and scandalous for any country to have security, defence or intelligence links with Britain and America ...

It is a useful question to ask what Mr Snowden should have done to have been judged a genuine whistle-blower. One condition is that he should have come across activity that was actually illegal (he didn’t: he saw stuff he didn’t like, and worried about where it was heading). He should have exhausted all available legal and constitutional options (he didn’t). The information he published should have been collected and distributed in a way that did the least damage for the desired effect (it wasn’t; he stole a colossal number of documents, mostly quite unrelated to the points he wanted to make, and their release is accompanied by colossal spin and considerable inaccuracy). His fugitive status in Russia (via Hong Kong) could hardly be designed to cause more alarm among those who care about American and allied secrets ...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/snowden-case-prosecution

[MADem]

1. ...he saw stuff he didn’t like, and worried about where it was heading...

Nobody has explained the public interest in revealing how democracies spy on dictatorships.

Right on the money. And this truth is self-evident:

That reflects a nihilistic anti-Western view which Mr Greenwald and others are entitled to hold. But it is not one which attracts much support in Britain or America—the countries whose secrets have been stolen. Political parties which demand the dismantling of all security and intelligence agencies do not fare well at the polls.

[BlueCaliDem]

5. ^^This!^^^

[cantbeserious]

2. The Only Harm Snowden Has Done To The Empire Is Bruising The Egos Of Oligarchs And Their Minions

eom

[struggle4progress]

7. Cute sloganeering is a crude substitute for detailed analysis based on actual facts

The rulers of China and Russia can also be described as oligarchs, as can groups like the Taliban, when they are actually in control

[cantbeserious]

10. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us

No slogans required.

[snot]

3. Actually,

some of the activity he came across WAS illegal.

every prior whistle-blower who tried to exhaust their other options first were punished for it. Not only that, but if he'd pressed his concerns any harder, his access to the info would probably have been terminated.

I'm not aware of the "colossal spin" and "considerable inaccuracy" claimed in this article.

Re- the alarm . . . well, maybe it would help if in the future the NSA didn't overreach to the point that a whole series of whistleblowers have felt compelled to risk all in order to expose NSA activities.

[grasswire]

4. yep

my thoughts too

[blkmusclmachine]

9. +1

[MADem]

6. Like what? nt

[cantbeserious]

11. How About Wanton Desecration Of The 4th Amendment As A Start

eom

[MADem]

15. You'll, of course, point me to the court ruling that made that determination?

Did the Supreme Court use the word "wanton" in this ruling that is news to me (and probably everyone else...since it hasn't happened)?

[cantbeserious]

16. Most American School Children Learn Of The Sanctity Of The US Constitution In Grade School

eom

[MADem]

18. Apparently you slept through the lesson on how the constitutionality of an action is determined?

Here's a hint--it's not on DU or any other internet message board!

[cantbeserious]

19. And Apparently A Stacked Conservative FISA Court Is Something One Missed As Well

eom

[MADem]

21. Write your Senator, now! Demand advise and consent review! That's the American way! nt

[cantbeserious]

22. Occupy Wall Street Taught The 99% That American Democracy Is Dead

The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Own And Control The Politicians That Own And Control Us.

All thanks to that same Supreme Court that enabled Citizens United.

[MADem]

23. No, it taught some campers that libertarians and anarchists can be disruptive for a brief period of

time, but once it gets cold and the batteries on their "devices" go dead, they pack up their shit and go home.

It also taught them that movements without leaders suck, and fade away. No great risk, no great reward.

They could have been real contenders--I was hopeful, but it became obvious once they twinkle-fingered John Lewis off the microphone that those fools just didn't know how to harness a genuine yearning for change.

But hey, way to ignore the Senate, there! Send your two an e-mail...it'll take five minutes, tops!

[cantbeserious]

24. Long Time DUers Defending The Empire And Oligarchs - Fascinating

eom

[MADem]

27. Apparently you don't quite "get" the goal of DU--we're here to elect more Democrats and fewer

Republicans to public office.

I happen to have an appreciation for rule of law. You seem to want to paint that as some kind of crime, and you want to associate me with "Empire" defenders (get over the Star Wars references--post puberty, they're a bit lame) and "Oligarchs" --someone's been catch-phrasing, haven't they?

Perhaps you're looking for Anarchy Underground?

Fascinating, indeed. Here's some light reading for you.

I'd ask you if you're helping out in any competitive congressional races, but I think I can guess as to your response.

[cantbeserious]

28. Some Here Are Progressives - For Those The Goal Is Social Justice - Not Defense Of The Realm

And their minions.

[MADem]

29. More "empire" references. You're aptly named.

It's clear you're not at all serious about real discussion.

If you read the link I provided, you'd have seen that "P" word you're touting.

[cantbeserious]

31. The First Of The Logical Fallacies - Ad Hominen Attacks - Attacking A User Name

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/

[MADem]

35. Way to avoid the point I made, that you did not, apparently read the link offered.

Instead, you're playing games, and thus, you ARE aptly named--you can't be serious.

Do your homework. Or don't, but --let me say it again--don't be expected to be taken SERIOUSLY if you don't.

[cantbeserious]

36. And One Is Defending A Two Party System That Defends And Justifies The 1% And Their Minions

eom

[MADem]

44. Ah, we're back to the "Evil Empire" again. And "minions" no less!

That's just a generic "get me outta here" statement, not responsive to the discussion in the slightest.

If you don't want to read the Wikipedia article I provided, or the SALON article, that both describe clearly the Libertarian leanings of The Economist, just say so.

Perhaps you're not really clear on the economic positions of Libertarians and Teahadists--the real One Percenters regard them as a thorn in their sides, as the second reference clearly indicates.

[cantbeserious]

49. Fascinating That One Continues To Defend Empire And The 1% At The Expense Of The 99%

eom

[MADem]

54. Fascinating that one avoids the topic of conversation in favor of sweeping generalizations about

"evil Empires" and "minions" and constant nattering about the 1 percent.

Try reading the links offered, and sticking to the topic at hand. Screaming "Waaaah--banksters!!!!!" and making phony, unsupported accusations about wildly imagined associations with the wealthy (on my sad little annual income, too!) every time you start losing an argument is not a good methodology, particularly when the discussion has absolutely NOTHING to do with economic issues whatsoever.

But hey--you think that things are unconstitutional just because you say so, so why am I not surprised? Like I said, you're not at all serious about this conversation, and it shows in your sad attempts at "retorts."

[cantbeserious]

56. Fascinating That One Still Continues To Defend The Empire And Their Minions

And further fascinating that one still continues to defend the desecration of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

[MADem]

67. Outta gas, eh? I'm doing no such thing, and you pretending I am is not supported by my comments.

Anyone with a third grade reading level can see what you're doing. It's not pretty, and certainly not clever.

Repetition is for parrots--do try to argue, and not revisit tired old catch phrases, or discredited accusations, if you want to be taken at all seriously.

Oligarchs, minions, Empire, Constitution ... rah, rah, rah!

The more you go on, the more I'm starting to think you haven't a grasp of the topic (since you are rather desperately trying to avoid it) --or how laws are made in America, sorry. That's all on you, of course. By your words we know you!

[cantbeserious]

70. Not Out Of Gas At All - Please Continue - Though You Have Stated Your Case On Snowden

eom

[MADem]

76. You'll have to go back to post fifty four and provide an actual response if we're to go on. nt

[cantbeserious]

78. My Response Is That Snowden Is A Whistle Blower - Please Continue

eom

[MADem]

80. He's not. He's a thief who stole secrets and ran to Russia via China with them, who hid

for days in the Russian Embassy in Hong Kong, and then scampered off to safe haven in Putin's dictatorial Russia.

[cantbeserious]

83. And You Can Prove This How - No Evidence To Support The Stated Claims - Opinion Only

All evidence is that the information is in the hands of journalists and not national entities.

[MADem]

90. You need to keep up--he **admitted** that he stole that stuff. Watch his interviews in HK.

He took the BAH job to steal the stuff.

Bzzzzzzzzzz.

Try again. Or not.

[cantbeserious]

92. Yes - Whistle Blowers Steel Stuff - Have You Ever Heard Of The Pentagon Papers

eom

[MADem]

98. He's no Ellsberg--but nice attempt at deflection. You do that a lot, I see.

You talk about one percenters in a thread about Snowden, and now that that's panned out poorly, you're trying to switch the topic to Ellsberg.

So, when did Ellsberg "steal" stuff and run to Russia or China, hmmmm?

Oh, wait--he didn't run. See, whistleblowers don't run. Thieves do.


Bzzzzzz....

[cantbeserious]

99. No Deflection Required - Just History

eom

[MADem]

101. OK, so your definition of "deflection" is "history."

I fear, to use your own catchphrase, that's "just your opinion."

[cantbeserious]

104. No Deflection - Just History - Whistle Blowers Steal Stuff

eom

[MADem]

107. I see you have run out of gas. You're sputtering.

[cantbeserious]

110. No Sputtering - How Long Would You Like To Discuss Your Opinion

eom

[MADem]

117. How long would you like to turn the ignition and cough ineffectually? nt

[cantbeserious]

122. As Long As You Like

eom

[MADem]

137. It's not me that will need a new starter... nt

[cantbeserious]

139. My Batteries Are Still Running

eom

[treestar]

141. Why do you care about the Fourth Amendment?

It is interpreted by the courts, and elected officials, as set forth in the Constitution, of which it is part. Yet it has failed abysmally, in favor of en "empire" of "banksters." It's not different than shouting "Benghazi."

[cantbeserious]

142. Why Do I Care ...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[treestar]

155. If you really think it's gone, because the banksters have taken over

What's the point of reciting it? And ignoring the case law and scholarly research on it, I might add.

If we already live in this bankster run country, the Fourth is already dead, so just quoting it does nothing. Your view of the country says it's like the Soviet Constitution, sounds nice, but just paper.

You're going to do what about that - blame Obama?

[cantbeserious]

156. Yes - It Is Gone - And Now Our Privacy Is Gone As Well

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The Current Economy

Who Stole The American Dream

The Decline Of The Liberal Class (the backstop to corporations)

[treestar]

158. Looks like you put together a very depressing picture for yourself

But yet you can still talk in public about it, and so can your video people. Strange.

[cantbeserious]

159. Not Depressing For One - Depressing For All

eom

[struggle4progress]

47. To change the FISA court, or the rules governing it, will require our control of Congress

and the White House for an extended period, together with some dedicated grass-roots activism to generate specific political pressures

[cantbeserious]

50. That One Still Believes In The Rule Of Law And Establishment Processes Of Power Setup For The 1%

Amazing!

[struggle4progress]

66. What appeals to you, it seems, is a certain way of sneering knowingly, which permits you

to congratulate yourself for your sophisticated cynicism

But I regard that as a lazy substitute for the hard work actually required to understand the facts of the world and the techniques required at the present time to effect meaningful change

If people do not learn for themselves how to work out the actual facts and how to construct practical analyses, they learn nothing about how to effect change

So mere cynicism teachesnothing useful -- -- and therefore, it always serves the status quo

Our real task is neither to convince people that change is easy nor that change is impossible: it is to teach people how to learn for themselves actual facts in detail, how to construct usable analyses, and how to test those analyses in practice, with the aim of learning new facts and refining their analyses

[cantbeserious]

68. Pretty Presumptuous Reply - Have A Listen To Chris Hedges - He Sums Up Matters Well

[struggle4progress]

72. It doesn't help. It's abstract and generic. It teaches nothing about the actual mechanics

of organizing for change.

[cantbeserious]

89. Too Sad That One Is Unwilling To Learn More About Hedges - He Speaks Of Mechanics Often

eom

[ucrdem]

94. Hedges is a NYT war pimp, and "eom" goes in the subject line, not the message.

You're welcome.

[cantbeserious]

96. Labeling Hedges A War Pimp Is Amazing - One Presumes That War Reporting Is Not Valued

eom

[struggle4progress]

113. No. Hedges is a very bright man, who trained as a theologian and then spent most of his adult life

as a war correspondent

I disagree with him little in purely philosophical terms -- but in practical terms we are separated by a wide gap

Hedges thinks moral indignation suffices; he wants excitement, with life and death issues confronting us at every moment; he thinks in terms of some cosmic Dies Irae

But in the final analysis he does not understand the actual work of organizing. He does not understand the critical role of careful political work in even the most favorable revolutionary settings -- or how failure, to attend to details of a particular political culture, has repeatedly doomed efforts to change

His failure is that his visions, of what might be needed, are not based on any actual organizing experience

[cantbeserious]

114. Thank You For Your Opinion - Others Would Disagree With This Assessment In General

eom

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. You are killin' it, MA!

[MADem]

45. Heh....I live in the real world!

[cantbeserious]

52. When Digging A Hole In Defense Of The 1% Has Been Dug - Best To Stop Digging

eom

[MADem]

55. You're digging a hole when you keep whining about "the one percent."

Your little buddy Snowden was a happy member of that club, doncha know!

So maybe you should take your own advice, and pull back on your ardent defense of One Percenter Eddie....

[cantbeserious]

57. Fascinating That One Would Willing Give Up Liberty For Safety - Ben Franklin Says

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[MADem]

60. Yeah, let's misquote Ben Franklin, now!

Because he was an expert on 21st Century national security issues.

Say, since you're so enamoured of Ben, and stuck back in the days of the founding fathers, you're probably a strict constructionist, too, huh?

I think there'd be an exodus to the north if you got your wishes...!

Why not bellow on a bit more about those oligarchs, too, while you're at it? Anything to avoid reading the two links provided, I suppose...!

You do know the RUSSIANS (ya know, where Ed lives now) have a corner on that "oligarch" market, ya?

Even that nutty Rand Paul--he of the squirrel on his head--thinks Saint Ed needs to do some time in jail. So does Independent Bernie Sanders. There aren't many people left who think Ed deserves a Get Out of Jail Free card, and that's because Ed is acting like an asshole, at a minimum, and like a FSB agent, in the worst light--in which case, unless he's stupid and cut a bad deal, he's the ULTIMATE One Percenter.

And talk about someone who gave up liberty for safety--if Eddie's not a Putin employee, he's in one of the biggest cages the world has to offer. His liberty is long gone, but he's safe as houses!

[cantbeserious]

61. That One Believes That Snowden Is Not A Whistle Blower Has Been Made Clear

eom

[MADem]

63. Indeed. He's not one, not anymore--if ever. nt

[cantbeserious]

65. Your Opinion - And Your Opinion Only - Others Will Disagree

eom

[MADem]

69. Well, not Bernie Sanders, or Rand Paul, or Elizabeth Warren...they don't disagree.

In fact, he has no friends in Congress at all, if the standard for friendship is a "Get out of jail free" card.

So it's not "My Opinion Only." Many share it.

[cantbeserious]

71. It Is Your Opinion - If You Choose To Hide Behind The Opinion Of Others - That Is Your Choice

eom

[MADem]

74. Hide behind? More like stand beside, but whatever. nt

[cantbeserious]

75. Good To See How Ones Opinions Are Formed

eom

[MADem]

77. It's rather simplistic to assume that association is causation--it's not. nt

[cantbeserious]

81. If You Do Associate With The Stated Opinion Makers - Please Elaborate

eom

[MADem]

82. I agree with them that Snowden's path back to USA is through a stint in jail. nt

[cantbeserious]

85. Your Opinion - And Your Opinion Only

eom

[MADem]

86. You're doing that parrot thing again. nt

[cantbeserious]

88. You Are The One That Wants To Restate Your Opinion Repeatedly

eom

[MADem]

91. Well, that's just not accurate. nt

[cantbeserious]

95. We Know Your Opinion - You Have Stated It Repeatedly

eom

[MADem]

103. As have you. nt

[cantbeserious]

106. I Am Not The One Arguing Your Opinion - You Are - We Know Where You Stand

eom

[MADem]

108. You aren't arguing at all--you haven't been for some time.

You are just repeating catch-phrases.

[cantbeserious]

111. There Is Nothing To Argue - Your Opinion Is Clear - Snowden Is A Criminal - Others Disagree

eom

[MADem]

118. Well, you got that right--you haven't argued because you don't have an argument...there is, indeed,

"nothing to argue."

[cantbeserious]

120. Glad To See That That Arguing With Yourself Is Pointless - You Are Free To Argue With Others

[Bodhi BloodWave]

171. Considering your use of the royal 'We', mind if i ask where his highness rules? n/t

[cantbeserious]

172. Those Reading This Thread And Following Along With The Conversation

The poster to which the reply is directed is anti Snowden.

[nilesobek]

112. Putin might think some of the Snowden materials

are so volatile and dangerous that he made it a stipulation of Snowden's sanctuary that he not release any further information damaging to the U.S. You seem to be very well informed so I would like your opinion. Is it naive to believe this statement by Putin?

As per an earlier post in this thread, we can come to agreement that the number one priority of team members is to get as many Democrats elected as possible everywhere.

[cantbeserious]

115. Binney And Hedges Thoughts About The Snowden Revelations In the US

[MADem]

116. Putin did say that--but Snowden has disrupted US diplomatic relations at every turn.

I do think Putin doesn't mind it when Snowden offers his services to Germany or Brazil, or releases what, on the surface, appears to be disparaging information concerning US intel activities (not illegal, despite Snowden's carping--and they do it to US, too) towards US-allied nations.

He just doesn't want Snowden releasing any information that might damage HIS country--make no mistake. Putin's being selective. He's already gotten a push-back from POTUS....the biggie being "Be nice my envoy, Billie Jean King" because he's not going anywhere near Sochi. And the choice of Obama's Olympic representatives wasn't an accident.

The US Congress isn't giving him any love and as he continues to shit little driblets of "embarrassing" intel activities (that are not illegal), he makes the likelihood that he'll come home with a short sentence even more unlikely. When Sanders (who is the kindest guy in the room) is saying he "violated his oath and he leaked information," and that there is a "price that he must pay," and he needs some jailing, you know he's not a whistleblower--he's just a thief who broke the law.

And yeah--we really DO need to elect more Dems--in the House, to get a majority, and the Senate, to secure a safe majority. If we could plus-up our governors, too, that would be flat-out grand.

[cantbeserious]

123. And That Matters Why - The Desecration of The 4th Amendment Is Much More Important

[MADem]

126. So do tell me--you occupy which seat on the Supreme Court?

Clarence Thomas--that's not you, surely!

When are the transcripts and tapes going to be released on the ruling that you've made? Can't wait!

[cantbeserious]

130. Deflection - We Now Know Again That The Us Constitution Is Of Little Value To You

eom

[MADem]

132. No, 'we' don't. Tsk, tsk. Not very good, that one. As the kids say, "fail." nt

[cantbeserious]

133. You Are The One - By Your Posts - That Advocates For The Desecration of The 4th Amendment

[MADem]

135. No, I am not. But you're the one who apparently has the idea you're on the Supreme Court--since you

"know" about rulings before they even happen (per your comments in this thread).

[cantbeserious]

143. More Deflection - More Deflection

eom

[cantbeserious]

51. Supportive Cohorts For The 1% Defense Have Arrived - We Look Forward To The Continued Debate

eom

[MADem]

58. You're the one defending One Percenter Eddie, here--not me.

He made way more in his worst year than I ever made in my best year.

Sorry, Unserious, that dog just ain't hunting. You really think repetition is going to make your bleating viable?

Why don't you say "oligarchs" again? I get the impression you've just learned the word!

[cantbeserious]

59. Snowden's Salary Does Not Qualify As A 1% Member - That Would Be North Of A Quarter Million Per Annum

eom

[MADem]

62. He took a HUGE pay cut to go steal information at BAH. Worst case, he's in the top TWO percent...

and I'm nowhere near there, either.

And if he's working for Pootie, he's doing better than a quarter mil a year, unless he's an idiot.

[cantbeserious]

64. From Wikiepedia - Household Income Distribution

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

Top 5%
$167,000 and up

Top 1.5%
$250,000 and up

Top 1.0%
$350,000 and up

[MADem]

73. Well, he's at least in the top five, but he was making close to two hundred before he took the pay

cut to steal--or so he said.

IIRC, he originally claimed his salary was Two Hundred and Forty Thousand per annum. WAPO and Guardian said two hundred grand. BAH said he was paid far less, but he supposedly was referencing his previous job.

Here are one link for you to read about "poor" Ed's earnings:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/06/11/did-snowden-really-earn-a-200000-salary/

There’s a massive difference between $122,000 and $200,000 — a 64 percent difference. Yet Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist at the forefront of these stories, says this: “That is a very strangely worded statement — using ‘rate,’” writes Greenwald. When asked whether he’d seen Snowden’s pay stubs, Greenwald said he hadn’t. “His salary didn’t really strike me as a central part of the story, to put that mildly. It’s possible Booz Allen is using a pro-rated figure, or it’s possible Snowden talked about his salary at his prior NSA job at Dell.” A source told the Erik Wemple Blog that Snowden wasn’t bonus-eligible....

[cantbeserious]

79. So Because He Did Not Set The Salary Levels Within The Corporation He Is Inherently Evil

eom

[MADem]

84. You--not me--have been the one whining about the Evil One Percenters in this thread.

Do try to keep up, now!

[cantbeserious]

87. Please Review - You Are The One That Raised Snowden's Salary As An Issue

eom

[MADem]

93. You're the one who started whining about evil one percenters in a thread about Snowden, who

is one of those richy-rich guys.

And now you're crying because I noticed!

[cantbeserious]

97. Wikipedia Data Refuted That Assertion Up Thread

eom

[MADem]

100. By your own data, he's a "richy rich."

Bzzzzzz.

[cantbeserious]

102. Not My Data - Data From US Economy - Definitions Provided By Others

eom

[MADem]

105. "Your" data is the data that "you" provided here in this thread. nt

[cantbeserious]

109. See Wikipedia Link Below - The Same Link Provided Earlier - Data Provided By Others

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

[MADem]

119. Yes--the data that YOU provided. nt

[cantbeserious]

121. Wrong - Data Provided By Wikipedia

eom

[MADem]

129. Data provided to this thread by YOU. So, sorry--not wrong.

Had you not cut-and-pasted the link, no one here would see it.

YOU brought it.

It's your link.

It's in a post YOU created.

[cantbeserious]

131. Data Provided By Wikipedia - Attacking The Messenger Is Another Logical Fallacy

eom

[MADem]

134. Ah, the parrot approach again. You apparently don't understand that pointing out a fact is not an

"attack" either. You brought the cite here, it's posted in your post, ergo; it is "your" cite. You'll just have to live with that.

I won't even bother to educate you on the proper placement of "eom" aka "nt."

It's just so....earnest.

[cantbeserious]

144. More Ad Hominen Attack - Labeling People As Parrots

eom

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. Looks like the fake 99%'rs got here first.

[stevenleser]

173. You won't get any examples of systemic illegal practices because the policies weren't illegal.

The best anyone who suggests that can do is to point into abuses by individuals.

The US v Duggan appellate decision and the additional cases it cites makes it pretty clear that everything was legal here.

[cantbeserious]

12. Yes - Very Predictable "Take Down" Journalism - Short On Specifics - Long On Suggestion And Innuendo

eom

[Doctor_J]

14. And pro-government, typical of the Economist

written by and for the 1% and their whores in government.

[cantbeserious]

17. The 1% Talking To Themselves - Very Similar To The Wall Street Journal

eom

[struggle4progress]

20. The Economist, in fact, tends to fall on the anti-government libertarian side of the spectrum

[cantbeserious]

25. And This Assertion Can Be Proven - How

eom

[struggle4progress]

46. You could, for example, read The Economist cover to cover for a while

Their stance would then become clear to you

I had a subscription for several years

[MADem]

30. Yes, that's a bit of an inconvenient truth.

The accusatory broad brush is so much easier to wield, though!

[cantbeserious]

32. And Yet No Proof Of The Assertion Has Been Provided

eom

[MADem]

34. Well, that's kind of like saying "No proof that the sky is blue has been provided."

I know you can read--because you post here. Go to the website and do some reading. Have a look. Surely you don't expect others to do your schoolwork for you?

Or you can take the Lazy Man's Path to Knowledge, and read this --- you'll arrive at the same place, at the end of the day.

SFP is correct. Though they are all over the map, they're more libertarian than anything else--Randy Rand Paul would be pleased.

The publication's own self-documented history states this about its editorial stance:

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.

—The Economist, [1]

[cantbeserious]

37. And Yet - Their Defense Of The Indefensible Belies Their Stated Principles - Seems To Happen Often

These days.

[MADem]

39. I don't think you've supported that statement at all.

They covered both sides of the issue, that's not enough for you? If you read the piece, it is a retort to a previously published article in the same publication.

[cantbeserious]

40. Spreading Fear Uncertainty And Doubt Is A Common Journalistic Practice In Use These Days

eom

[MADem]

43. So, covering both sides of a specific issue while touting a libertarian agenda is spreading FUD?

Look, they are what they are--and no one is suggesting they are anything other than Paulbotty selfish jerks, but they played both the Pro-Ed and Anti-Ed cards, in two separate editorials on the topic.

That's not FUD, IMO. I don't think anyone would suggest it is, either. You can find people from all political persuasions on either side of the "Eddie" question--it isn't divisible by straight party lines. I happen to agree with Bernie Sanders on the question of Ed; he shouldn't get a life sentence, but he needs to do some time.

[cantbeserious]

53. Any Libertarian Agenda Has Been Raised Solely In One's Reply - FUD Is The Process Of Causing Doubt

Those doubts are raised by all manner of journalism across the globe daily.

The 1% rely on journalism of this type to sow doubt among the 99%.

The root strategy is called divide and conquer.

In this way the 1% benefit from the 99% tacitly supporting the cause of Oligarchs and Empire.

Quite the system of enslavement.

[MADem]

124. No, nice try, though. Your bus is at the Babble stop, now.

You're right about one thing--taking a Snowden/national security/theft of classified material thread and trying to turn it into a "Waaaaaaah ....the ONE PERCENT.... and Ben Franklin....and .... Constitution...and 4th Amendment..... oligarchs... EMPIRE!!!!! .... Minions! Yeah... lots of MINIONS ... unnnh...slavery...STUFF!!!!" is most certainly a lame effort at "divide and conquer" and it is also "FUD" --- but anyone with a high school diploma can see that for what it is.

Distraction. Lame distraction, too.

[cantbeserious]

125. More Ad Hominen Attacks - The Logical Fallacies In Play Yet Again

eom

[MADem]

127. No--you're not making sense and I'm pointing it out.

That's not "ad hominem" (to the man)--that's an analysis of the words you're typing, which aren't an argument, they're just, well, babble.

You probably want to review your understanding of "ad hominem" too--it's not a license to talk ragtime.

[cantbeserious]

128. You Are The One Using Ridicule As A Talking Point

eom

[MADem]

136. If you feel "ridiculed," perhaps you should re-evaluate your conversational strategy.

It's entirely ineffective.

I'm speaking the truth in response to your assertions, and you're feeling ridiculed as a consequence. That's not my fault--that's your inability to see the reality of what I'm saying to you.

[cantbeserious]

145. Your Truth And My Truth Diverge Sharply

eom

[MADem]

146. Yeah, sure, whatever you say, there, sport! nt

[cantbeserious]

147. Ever More Ad Hominen By Way Of Denigrating Comments

eom

[MADem]

148. Whatever you say, sport! nt

[cantbeserious]

149. Continued Ad Hominen With Denigrating Personal Comments

eom

[MADem]

150. Whatever you say, sport!

FWIW, since you're apparently unclear on the definition of the term, a "sport" is a pleasant and positive person, e.g. "He was a real sport, despite the long delay."

Interesting that you find it a "denigrating personal comment," there, sport!

[cantbeserious]

151. Ever More And Continued Denigration

eom

[MADem]

152. Look, I'm giving you attention--if you don't want it, you know what to do.

You fired up this discussion again--not me.

If you continue to respond, then I know what you're craving is the attention. Sport!

Tick tock!

[cantbeserious]

153. I Am Merely Responding To A Serial Poster

eom

[MADem]

154. No, you are seeking me out. You want attention from me. nt

[cantbeserious]

157. Chuckles

eom

[MADem]

160. Here's some more attention for you. "eom"

[cantbeserious]

161. Chuckles Again

eom

[MADem]

162. And more attention. "eom."

[cantbeserious]

163. Where We Are Today - How We Got Here - Who Sold Us Out

US Income Distribution - How Income Inequality Is Reflected In Census Data




What The Corporate Oligarchs And 1% Are Doing Today

How Corporate Oligarchs And The 1% Have Systematically Undermined US Democracy And The Middle Class

How The Liberal Class Sold Out To The Corporate Oligarchs And 1%

[MADem]

164. Has nothing to do with the OP, either. "eom"

[cantbeserious]

165. Though You Needed Ever More Attention

eom

[MADem]

166. That would be you. nt

[cantbeserious]

167. Seems To This One That You Keep Coming Back For More

eom

[MADem]

168. That would be you. "eom"

[cantbeserious]

169. One Would Disagree - The Tables Are Turned - The Mirror Is Focused Your Way

eom

[MADem]

170. No, it's not. "eom"

[Doctor_J]

42. I think you're thinking of the Financial Times

The Economist is an English, weekly, glossy version of the NYT - extremely establishment-friendly. Even Christopher Hitchens referred to it as, "That lovely conservative publication". Or, as another poster in this thread put it, "The 1% talking to themselves".

[struggle4progress]

48. Hitchens had no particularly consistent political views. Sometimes he called himself a Marxist, and

other times he insisted "capitalism is the only revolutionary system." He had a certain following among the UK's Tories and sometimes wrote for the conservative London Spectator. He was allegedly quite shocked by Clinton's "war crimes" in the Sudan, but he spent years defending Bush's adventures and the waterboarding of terrorism suspects. My natural guess is that his contrarian impulses were fueled in part by his alcoholism

[Doctor_J]

13. I agree only if whoever OKed the spying is tried simultaneously

You'll need a very large defendants' box to hold them I suppose.

[Thinkingabout]

26. This will be in some of the opening statements in Snowden's trial. There will be much more.

Oh, BTW, this will be heard in court by those who know how to read and understand the Constitution and can read and interpret laws which are valid. It is not and never has been about Snowden revealing phone call records was being collected by the NSA nor the data was used in intelligence gathering. The CT will surface.

[RC]

33. The Economist is a Right-wing, upper crust publication, geared toward the upwardly moneyed folks.

They spout the mantra of the 1%. Any articles they have, should be viewed with suspicion of Right leaning slant, spin and even outright propaganda, no matter the subject.

[MADem]

41. It's a Libertarian "I got mine, Eff You" publication. Not "upper crust," though.

It's "populist"--like the tea party. And they are no fans of the one percent, not at all. They're more like fans of rMoney's 47 percent--those "wealth creators" as he called 'em--not the "takers." It's a rather curious position they hold; it's not One Percent, and it's sure as hell not Social Security for all....it's right there in Dandy Randy territory.

Here, let SALON explain it all:

...My problem with the Economist, though, is not with its reporting, but with its doctrinaire libertarian editorial slant. The editors of the Economist are sophisticated enough to know that they need to moderate their free-market utopianism with the occasional nod to government’s role in R&D or the legitimacy of concerns about inequality. Even so, the intellectual orthodoxy of the magazine reflects in origins in the Victorian heyday of classical liberalism, when utopian expectations for free markets inspired the slogan “Free Trade Is the International Law of God.” The name of the magazine should be the Victorian Economist.....Unfortunately, the Economist has not undergone a conversion. What is calls “true progressivism” is fake progressivism but authentic libertarianism, in a moderate and genteel rather than an extreme Ayn Randian form.

To be fair, the magazine’s diagnosis of rent-seeking by the politically connected as one cause of growing inequality gets a lot right. They are right to shine a spotlight on the ill-gotten wealth of Mexican oligarchs or Chinese communist princelings who have been enriched by their personal control of state monopolies. And the editors are right to criticize subsidies to America’s financial sector: “One reason why Wall Street accounts for a disproportionate share of the wealthy is the implicit subsidy given to too-big-to-fail banks.”

....“True progressivism,” according to the Economist, requires addressing rising inequality by destroying teachers’ unions and cutting expenditures on the elderly, while avoiding major tax increases on “wealth-creators.” If you think that American public schoolteachers are more responsible than Wall Street for growing inequality in the U.S., and if you think that the richest people in the U.S. and the world are accurately described as “wealth-creators,” then I encourage you to buy a subscription to the Economist. I prefer to read libertarian propaganda without the genteel camouflage.

[treestar]

140. Great article

The real question in the Snowden affair is indeed authority. But it is not the one that the Snowdenistas like to pose. Who gives Snowden and his media allies the right to decide which secrets to leak, which careers to end, which costly intelligence programmes to ruin, and which clues to give to terrorists, gangsters and foreign spies about the way governments try to monitor them?