Edward Snowden poll (5/20/14): Hero or Traitor? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Maybe it wasn't the NSA - who did the dirty work on Greenwald, Miranda, Rosen, Judicial Watch? I guess the DOJ did the lying to Congress and the USSC, though the head of the NSA, Clapper?, lied to Congress.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Not really all that funny. There's only one President in history who we have actual proof used the federal government to investigate and intimidate journalists, and he would have been impeached for it had he not chosen to resign.

 

[drummer]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Not really all that funny. There's only one President in history who we have actual proof used the federal government to investigate and intimidate journalists, and he would have been impeached for it had he not chosen to resign.

No, you're the one that's hilarious. I mean, how long did you deny this being an issue? Pretty much since it was revealed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do you want an honest conversation or not? My guess is you don't.

I thought that was wide open. I don't even have to concede the issue about Bush/Cheney because it's a fact.

Just as Snowden happened under Obama's watch, not Bush's.

Oh ok, The Program is Obama's fault. Congrat's, MaxEmptyDome2000.

Wow, Drummer, hope you're messing with me, in which case cheers. I do have a live concert and free beer to go to outside. Just absorbing your intellectual wisdom here, so you should feel honored.

If you want to talk just Bush/Cheney, happy to. My take on it is that essentially doing an end-round on the FISA law by making it self-signing was reprehensible.

Again, has that process changed, or are we still just talking about Yesterday as Macca said? Trying to learn something here.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Maybe it wasn't the NSA - who did the dirty work on Greenwald, Miranda, Rosen, Judicial Watch? I guess the DOJ did the lying to Congress and the USSC, though the head of the NSA, Clapper?, lied to Congress.

Other than Clapper lying to Congress I have no idea what you're talking about. Is there proof of intimidation? Is there proof that Obama was involved? That was your assertion. As an aside, I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of Larry Klayman's mouth. He's one of the biggest loons in this country.

 

[TheAristocrat]

It's 2014 and it's still Bush's fault.

Not surprising but can we moveon.org? Why are we stillstuckonbush.com?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Maybe it wasn't the NSA - who did the dirty work on Greenwald, Miranda, Rosen, Judicial Watch? I guess the DOJ did the lying to Congress and the USSC, though the head of the NSA, Clapper?, lied to Congress.

Other than Clapper lying to Congress I have no idea what you're talking about. Is there proof of intimidation? Is there proof that Obama was involved? That was your assertion.As an aside, I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of Larry Klayman's mouth. He's one of the biggest loons in this country.

Oh Ok - I see.

The Judicial Watch info does not come from Klayman, I think that's just been reported. I will see about that one.

Apologies - The "Obama administration."

 

[timschochet]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Not really all that funny. There's only one President in history who we have actual proof used the federal government to investigate and intimidate journalists, and he would have been impeached for it had he not chosen to resign.

No, you're the one that's hilarious. I mean, how long did you deny this being an issue? Pretty much since it was revealed.

i was VERY wrong about several assumptions I made about the NSA. But we're not discussing that now. We are discussing the specific charge that President Obama is using the government to intimidate journalists.

 

[drummer]

Do you want an honest conversation or not? My guess is you don't.

I thought that was wide open. I don't even have to concede the issue about Bush/Cheney because it's a fact.

Just as Snowden happened under Obama's watch, not Bush's.

Oh ok, The Program is Obama's fault. Congrat's, MaxEmptyDome2000.

Wow, Drummer, hope you're messing with me, in which case cheers. I do have a live concert and free beer to go to outside. Just absorbing your intellectual wisdom here, so you shoudl feel honored.

If you want to talk just Bush/Cheney, happy to. My take on it is that essentially doing an end-round on the FISA law by making it self-signing was reprehensible.

Again, has that process changed, or are we still just talking about Yesterday as Macca said?

Look, I get it. You don't want to talk about the reality. You want to focus on two people who basically are dealing with the collateral of The Program. Do you see how The Program has a capitol letter in front of each word? Did Snowden or Obama create The Program? No, they didn't. So let's start with the origins of The Program first before you put that cart before the Snoden/Obama horse. Then maybe we can have an intellectual discussion about it. Unitl then, enjoy your concert, and maybe by the time you get back and are drunk and stoned enough that you might be able to handle The Program now.

 

[drummer]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Not really all that funny. There's only one President in history who we have actual proof used the federal government to investigate and intimidate journalists, and he would have been impeached for it had he not chosen to resign.

No, you're the one that's hilarious. I mean, how long did you deny this being an issue? Pretty much since it was revealed.

i was VERY wrong about several assumptions I made about the NSA. But we're not discussing that now. We are discussing the specific charge that President Obama is using the government to intimidate journalists.

Ok, we can NOT DISCUSS HOW YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THIS.

 

[Politician Spock]

If the British won, those in history books labeled as patriots would be labled as traitors, assuming they even made it into the history books at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do you want an honest conversation or not? My guess is you don't.

I thought that was wide open. I don't even have to concede the issue about Bush/Cheney because it's a fact.

Just as Snowden happened under Obama's watch, not Bush's.

Oh ok, The Program is Obama's fault. Congrat's, MaxEmptyDome2000.

Wow, Drummer, hope you're messing with me, in which case cheers. I do have a live concert and free beer to go to outside. Just absorbing your intellectual wisdom here, so you shoudl feel honored.

If you want to talk just Bush/Cheney, happy to. My take on it is that essentially doing an end-round on the FISA law by making it self-signing was reprehensible.

Again, has that process changed, or are we still just talking about Yesterday as Macca said?

Look, I get it. You don't want to talk about the reality. You want to focus on two people who basically are dealing with the collateral of The Program. Do you see how The Program has a capitol letter in front of each word? Did Snowden or Obama create The Program? No, they didn't. So let's start with the origins of The Program first before you put that cart before the Snoden/Obama horse. Then maybe we can have an intellectual discussion about it. Unitl then, enjoy your concert, and maybe by the time you get back and are drunk and stoned enough that you might be able to handle The Program now.

Ok, I hear you. I'm going to go catch a sunset.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, do you have backup for your assertion that President Obama used the NSA to investigate and intimidate journalists? Because that's a pretty damn serious charge, one that I'm going to be highly skeptical of unless it's been reported in a reputable source (If it has- I would change my mind about Obama and demand his impeachment).

Maybe it wasn't the NSA - who did the dirty work on Greenwald, Miranda, Rosen, Judicial Watch? I guess the DOJ did the lying to Congress and the USSC, though the head of the NSA, Clapper?, lied to Congress.

Other than Clapper lying to Congress I have no idea what you're talking about. Is there proof of intimidation? Is there proof that Obama was involved? That was your assertion.As an aside, I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of Larry Klayman's mouth. He's one of the biggest loons in this country.

Oh Ok - I see.

The Judicial Watch info does not come from Klayman, I think that's just been reported. I will see about that one.

Apologies - The "Obama administration."

Fine: the Obama administration. Do you have proof that the Obama administration used either the NSA or any other part of the federal government to investigate and intimidate journalists? Where is this coming from?

 

[Politician Spock]

i was VERY wrong about several assumptions I made about the NSA.

Thanks for the new addition to my signature.

 

[timschochet]

i was VERY wrong about several assumptions I made about the NSA.

Thanks for the new addition to my signature.

You're welcome to it. I still think the NSA is necessary, and that the mass collection of data (with collective warrants) is necessary and legal. I still think many (though not all) of your concerns are unwarranted.

 

[drummer]

If anything, this make me appreciate the value of Tor. Until the NSA starts tapping into that like they have fiber optic lines going into EUR.

 

[drummer]

i was VERY wrong about several assumptions I made about the NSA.

Thanks for the new addition to my signature.

You're welcome to it. I still think the NSA is necessary, and that the mass collection of data (with collective warrants) is necessary and legal. I still think many (though not all) of your concerns are unwarranted.

It's massive survelliance of American citizens that is illegal. Of course you agree with this.

 

[timschochet]

How about coward?

I'm glad some of what he released is out in the open. I would feel better if it seemed like anyone with any real power in our government was doing something about it instead of just pumping out the daily rhetoric. But at least the average U.S. citizens now knows how far off the rails our government has gone, how healthy it is for us ALL to deeply mistrust them with our privacy and our Constitutional rights, and how dangerous the security for privacy swap is. The privacy "nuts" were vindicated I hope it wakes people up come election time. I also agree that there is no viable process for him to go through in order to blow the whistle on something this deep and harmful to so many in the higher echelons of government. I would fear for at least my livelihood and most likely my life.

Saying that, just because you want to expose some deep, dark secrets of the U.S. government that are harming your fellow citizens, you can't just indiscriminately grab every piece of Top Secret information you can get your hands on and then hold our government hostage with what you still have up your sleeve. He is basically bartering his own life and well being with the well being of our nation. That makes him a traitor. Whether we're happy with the ends, the means are not justified. We need security and the government does have to keep secrets, this is destructive to that entire process. Not to mention it has wreaked havoc with our foreign policy.

He had a third choice. He could have been a man and faced the music. The information could have been released through the U.S. media and gone through the media editing process. Even if he didn't go through the U.S. media and decided to send a drive off to Julian Assange, he still could have remained here and once the bomb dropped he could have stood up and faced the music. He could have walked into the NY times, the Fox Studios, or CNN and said "I'm here, I fear for my life, this is my story" and immediately gotten his story in front of the people. If Snowden stayed in the U.S. and went to prison here, he would have been a martyr. The international damage inflicted would have been minimized but the most important domestic revelations would have been released AND he would have garnered tons of support from privacy advocates on both the left and the right. He could have been a rallying point and hero to all pro-Constitution, privacy loving advocates. The fact that he is sitting under the protective shadow of Putin after passing through the protective embrace of China has killed any credibility he has. We have no way of knowing what he voluntarily or involuntarily has given away to our avowed enemies. We don't know what he still has yet to release, where it is, or whose hands have been on it.

While I agree he has helped our country in some ways I think he has harmed it as well. He had other options but he was too cowardly to take them.

I'm pretty confident, had he stayed in the US, he'd never see the inside of a prison. Some sort of "accident" would have occurred and we certainly wouldn't have gotten an accurate take on the information he has from our media. Not sure fearing for your life is "cowardly" though.

Of course. Because that's what happened to Daniel Ellsberg and because that's what happens to every other celebrity who defies the American government. They all mysteriously disappear. No offense, but this post represents the root of the problem IMO: many of you have an unreasoning fear of our government. We do not live in Orwell's world.

 

[drummer]

BTW:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/house-to-vote-on-watered-down-nsa-phone-metadata-spying-reform-bill/

The House on Thursday is expected to vote on legislation reforming the National Security Agency's phone metadata spying program, a package that some civil rights groups quit backing following 11th-hour changes supported by the Obama administration.

"It's too watered down for us to be able to support it," Kevin Bankston, policy director of the Open Technology Institute, said in a telephone interview.

The House Rules Committee dramatically altered the USA Freedom Act package Tuesday, despite two other House panels forwarding more privacy-laden legislation to the House weeks ago.

The American Civil Liberties Union scoffed at the outcome. “The USA Freedom Act leaves much to be desired, and it is a limited first step in the direction of reforming mass surveillance practices. The Senate will have to make extensive improvements to satisfy the concerns of the American people over mass surveillance, and we will fight to make that happen," Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's legislative office, said in a statement.

Here's what the revised legislation does:

Instead of the NSA collecting and housing the metadata from every phone call made to and from the United States, that data will remain in the hands of the telecoms. There were no laws barring the NSA from searching the data carte blanche, although the agency promised it would only do so if it had a "reasonable articulable suspicion" against a terrorism target.

The USA Freedom Act, however, demands that the NSA get approval for a search from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before demanding that the telecoms hand over metadata.

Under the act, a database search inquiry is allowed if it is “a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device.” Until Tuesday, an allowable search under the USA Freedom Act was defined as “a term used to uniquely describe a person, entity, or account.”

"It's now dangerously broad and vague," Bankston said, suggesting the new terminology allows for "phone records of all calls in an area code."

The phone metadata includes the numbers of both callers, the duration and time of a call, international mobile subscriber identity numbers of mobile callers, and calling card numbers.

Even before the legislation was weakened Tuesday, civil rights groups were skeptical of the USA Freedom Act but backed it because they knew it was among the best packages they could get from lawmakers. Among other reasons, the plan had won their support because it sets into law that the NSA may demand that metadata from a target be expanded two degrees, or two hops. That greatly increases the number of people the NSA can eyeball beyond the original target.

However, before NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden leaked the existence of the program last year, the government was jumping three degrees, or three hops away from the original target.

The revised package faces an uncertain House floor vote Thursday.

In the meantime, a Senate panel months ago had approved a package similar to the USA Freedom Act before revisions were made to it Tuesday. All of which means that the state of NSA reform is up in the air.

 

[Politician Spock]

The NSA has, reportedly, committed some acts which I can't justify, and their officials have also lied to the public which they are supposed to be serving, which I also can't justify. These are the main reasons I stopped defending the NSA in this forum.

But I still can't get behind the assumption, implicit in so many comments here, that the entire NSA program is criminal, and therefore Cheney and Obama are criminal. To me that remains extreme and nonsensical.

You know W signed off on all of this, don't you?

Sure. And based on what I know, I would have too. So far as I'm aware, it's the execution of the program, and not it's conception, which has possibly gone astray.

I am not anti-government. I think city governments are great. County governments are great. State governments are great.

But this Federal government has gone off the deep end, to the point of being the biggest adversary to freedom the world has ever seen. It makes the 18th centuty British Empire look tame. It's motivation was to increase security. An endeavor that appears harmless to freedom in theory, but highly destructive in practice. Look past the theory and witness what it has done.

 

[timschochet]

The NSA has, reportedly, committed some acts which I can't justify, and their officials have also lied to the public which they are supposed to be serving, which I also can't justify. These are the main reasons I stopped defending the NSA in this forum.

But I still can't get behind the assumption, implicit in so many comments here, that the entire NSA program is criminal, and therefore Cheney and Obama are criminal. To me that remains extreme and nonsensical.

You know W signed off on all of this, don't you?

Sure. And based on what I know, I would have too. So far as I'm aware, it's the execution of the program, and not it's conception, which has possibly gone astray.

I am not anti-government. I think city governments are great. County governments are great. State governments are great.But this Federal government has gone off the deep end, to the point of being the biggest adversary to freedom the world has ever seen. It makes the 18th centuty British Empire look tame. It's motivation was to increase security. An endeavor that appears harmless to freedom in theory, but highly destructive in practice. Look past the theory and witness what it has done.

I'd like to simply respectfully disagree with you, but your use of over the top rhetoric prevents that. The biggest adversary to freedom the world has ever seen? Bigger than the Nazis, the Communists, slavery, the Islamists? Really?

 

[Politician Spock]

The NSA has, reportedly, committed some acts which I can't justify, and their officials have also lied to the public which they are supposed to be serving, which I also can't justify. These are the main reasons I stopped defending the NSA in this forum.

But I still can't get behind the assumption, implicit in so many comments here, that the entire NSA program is criminal, and therefore Cheney and Obama are criminal. To me that remains extreme and nonsensical.

You know W signed off on all of this, don't you?

Sure. And based on what I know, I would have too. So far as I'm aware, it's the execution of the program, and not it's conception, which has possibly gone astray.

I am not anti-government. I think city governments are great. County governments are great. State governments are great.But this Federal government has gone off the deep end, to the point of being the biggest adversary to freedom the world has ever seen. It makes the 18th centuty British Empire look tame. It's motivation was to increase security. An endeavor that appears harmless to freedom in theory, but highly destructive in practice. Look past the theory and witness what it has done.

I'd like to simply respectfully disagree with you, but your use of over the top rhetoric prevents that. The biggest adversary to freedom the world has ever seen? Bigger than the Nazis, the Communists, slavery, the Islamists? Really?

Yes really.

Each of those examples had a motivation for what they did to squash freedom. And they were supported by those that valued the motivation.

The Federal government's motivation for what it is doing is security. You value that motivation, thus you support it, no differently than those who supported the motivations of the examples you listed.

When you don't value the motivation, it's easy to see how freedom is being destroyed by it.

 

[timschochet]

In all of those systems I mentioned, Politician Spock, you and I wouldn't be allowed to have this discussion in public, much less on an internet forum where anyone can read it. If we ever reach the day when our government doesn't allow us to have this sort of discussion, then I will agree with you.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

I had to go back and reread your posts and I still have no idea what your point is.

 

[Politician Spock]

In all of those systems I mentioned, Politician Spock, you and I wouldn't be allowed to have this discussion in public, much less on an internet forum where anyone can read it. If we ever reach the day when our government doesn't allow us to have this sort of discussion, then I will agree with you.

The government doesn't care what is said in public as long as it knows everything that is said in private.

 

[Steed]

How about coward?

I'm glad some of what he released is out in the open. I would feel better if it seemed like anyone with any real power in our government was doing something about it instead of just pumping out the daily rhetoric. But at least the average U.S. citizens now knows how far off the rails our government has gone, how healthy it is for us ALL to deeply mistrust them with our privacy and our Constitutional rights, and how dangerous the security for privacy swap is. The privacy "nuts" were vindicated I hope it wakes people up come election time. I also agree that there is no viable process for him to go through in order to blow the whistle on something this deep and harmful to so many in the higher echelons of government. I would fear for at least my livelihood and most likely my life.

Saying that, just because you want to expose some deep, dark secrets of the U.S. government that are harming your fellow citizens, you can't just indiscriminately grab every piece of Top Secret information you can get your hands on and then hold our government hostage with what you still have up your sleeve. He is basically bartering his own life and well being with the well being of our nation. That makes him a traitor. Whether we're happy with the ends, the means are not justified. We need security and the government does have to keep secrets, this is destructive to that entire process. Not to mention it has wreaked havoc with our foreign policy.

He had a third choice. He could have been a man and faced the music. The information could have been released through the U.S. media and gone through the media editing process. Even if he didn't go through the U.S. media and decided to send a drive off to Julian Assange, he still could have remained here and once the bomb dropped he could have stood up and faced the music. He could have walked into the NY times, the Fox Studios, or CNN and said "I'm here, I fear for my life, this is my story" and immediately gotten his story in front of the people. If Snowden stayed in the U.S. and went to prison here, he would have been a martyr. The international damage inflicted would have been minimized but the most important domestic revelations would have been released AND he would have garnered tons of support from privacy advocates on both the left and the right. He could have been a rallying point and hero to all pro-Constitution, privacy loving advocates. The fact that he is sitting under the protective shadow of Putin after passing through the protective embrace of China has killed any credibility he has. We have no way of knowing what he voluntarily or involuntarily has given away to our avowed enemies. We don't know what he still has yet to release, where it is, or whose hands have been on it.

While I agree he has helped our country in some ways I think he has harmed it as well. He had other options but he was too cowardly to take them.

I'm pretty confident, had he stayed in the US, he'd never see the inside of a prison. Some sort of "accident" would have occurred and we certainly wouldn't have gotten an accurate take on the information he has from our media. Not sure fearing for your life is "cowardly" though.

Of course. Because that's what happened to Daniel Ellsberg and because that's what happens to every other celebrity who defies the American government. They all mysteriously disappear. No offense, but this post represents the root of the problem IMO: many of you have an unreasoning fear of our government. We do not live in Orwell's world.

You're pretty naive if you don't think the most powerful nation in the world wouldn't kill one individual to keep a secret this big from coming to light.

 

[drummer]

I voted traitor and here's why.

Yes, maybe there is a grey area where he betrayed his country but at the same time the people have a right to know about the secret surveillance program, so did our allies.

However, he has run to the arms and maybe even directly aided Putin, and the Chinese communists, and who knows who else (indirectly, terrorists, other dictators?), who jail, torture, and murder their own people for free speech.

If anything, with all the info he has spilled re: approach, the Russians at least will be creating their own network to do untold damage to the lives of innocent people who wish to speak out.

So, yes, he is a traitor.

Also, I have no idea how people can support both Snowden and President Obama. If you back Snowden you must by default oppose the president who authorizes warrantless searches of our private communications.

Smowden is a hero. Cheney is the traitor.

I had to go back and reread your posts and I still have no idea what your point is.

That's not on me. That's on you.

 

[timschochet]

In all of those systems I mentioned, Politician Spock, you and I wouldn't be allowed to have this discussion in public, much less on an internet forum where anyone can read it. If we ever reach the day when our government doesn't allow us to have this sort of discussion, then I will agree with you.

The government doesn't care what is said in public as long as it knows everything that is said in private.

OK. Are you Mulder or Scully? That's all I need to know.

 

[timschochet]

How about coward?

I'm glad some of what he released is out in the open. I would feel better if it seemed like anyone with any real power in our government was doing something about it instead of just pumping out the daily rhetoric. But at least the average U.S. citizens now knows how far off the rails our government has gone, how healthy it is for us ALL to deeply mistrust them with our privacy and our Constitutional rights, and how dangerous the security for privacy swap is. The privacy "nuts" were vindicated I hope it wakes people up come election time. I also agree that there is no viable process for him to go through in order to blow the whistle on something this deep and harmful to so many in the higher echelons of government. I would fear for at least my livelihood and most likely my life.

Saying that, just because you want to expose some deep, dark secrets of the U.S. government that are harming your fellow citizens, you can't just indiscriminately grab every piece of Top Secret information you can get your hands on and then hold our government hostage with what you still have up your sleeve. He is basically bartering his own life and well being with the well being of our nation. That makes him a traitor. Whether we're happy with the ends, the means are not justified. We need security and the government does have to keep secrets, this is destructive to that entire process. Not to mention it has wreaked havoc with our foreign policy.

He had a third choice. He could have been a man and faced the music. The information could have been released through the U.S. media and gone through the media editing process. Even if he didn't go through the U.S. media and decided to send a drive off to Julian Assange, he still could have remained here and once the bomb dropped he could have stood up and faced the music. He could have walked into the NY times, the Fox Studios, or CNN and said "I'm here, I fear for my life, this is my story" and immediately gotten his story in front of the people. If Snowden stayed in the U.S. and went to prison here, he would have been a martyr. The international damage inflicted would have been minimized but the most important domestic revelations would have been released AND he would have garnered tons of support from privacy advocates on both the left and the right. He could have been a rallying point and hero to all pro-Constitution, privacy loving advocates. The fact that he is sitting under the protective shadow of Putin after passing through the protective embrace of China has killed any credibility he has. We have no way of knowing what he voluntarily or involuntarily has given away to our avowed enemies. We don't know what he still has yet to release, where it is, or whose hands have been on it.

While I agree he has helped our country in some ways I think he has harmed it as well. He had other options but he was too cowardly to take them.

I'm pretty confident, had he stayed in the US, he'd never see the inside of a prison. Some sort of "accident" would have occurred and we certainly wouldn't have gotten an accurate take on the information he has from our media. Not sure fearing for your life is "cowardly" though.

Of course. Because that's what happened to Daniel Ellsberg and because that's what happens to every other celebrity who defies the American government. They all mysteriously disappear.No offense, but this post represents the root of the problem IMO: many of you have an unreasoning fear of our government. We do not live in Orwell's world.

You're pretty naive if you don't think the most powerful nation in the world wouldn't kill one individual to keep a secret this big from coming to light.

There are whistleblowers all the time. Daniel Ellsberg stayed in this country and lectured for years. If Snowden had revealed what he knew to the New York Times, he would have been prosecuted, and perhaps thrown in jail. But he wouldn't have been assassinated.

 

[Slapdash]

How about coward?

I'm glad some of what he released is out in the open. I would feel better if it seemed like anyone with any real power in our government was doing something about it instead of just pumping out the daily rhetoric. But at least the average U.S. citizens now knows how far off the rails our government has gone, how healthy it is for us ALL to deeply mistrust them with our privacy and our Constitutional rights, and how dangerous the security for privacy swap is. The privacy "nuts" were vindicated I hope it wakes people up come election time. I also agree that there is no viable process for him to go through in order to blow the whistle on something this deep and harmful to so many in the higher echelons of government. I would fear for at least my livelihood and most likely my life.

Saying that, just because you want to expose some deep, dark secrets of the U.S. government that are harming your fellow citizens, you can't just indiscriminately grab every piece of Top Secret information you can get your hands on and then hold our government hostage with what you still have up your sleeve. He is basically bartering his own life and well being with the well being of our nation. That makes him a traitor. Whether we're happy with the ends, the means are not justified. We need security and the government does have to keep secrets, this is destructive to that entire process. Not to mention it has wreaked havoc with our foreign policy.

He had a third choice. He could have been a man and faced the music. The information could have been released through the U.S. media and gone through the media editing process. Even if he didn't go through the U.S. media and decided to send a drive off to Julian Assange, he still could have remained here and once the bomb dropped he could have stood up and faced the music. He could have walked into the NY times, the Fox Studios, or CNN and said "I'm here, I fear for my life, this is my story" and immediately gotten his story in front of the people. If Snowden stayed in the U.S. and went to prison here, he would have been a martyr. The international damage inflicted would have been minimized but the most important domestic revelations would have been released AND he would have garnered tons of support from privacy advocates on both the left and the right. He could have been a rallying point and hero to all pro-Constitution, privacy loving advocates. The fact that he is sitting under the protective shadow of Putin after passing through the protective embrace of China has killed any credibility he has. We have no way of knowing what he voluntarily or involuntarily has given away to our avowed enemies. We don't know what he still has yet to release, where it is, or whose hands have been on it.

While I agree he has helped our country in some ways I think he has harmed it as well. He had other options but he was too cowardly to take them.

I'm pretty confident, had he stayed in the US, he'd never see the inside of a prison. Some sort of "accident" would have occurred and we certainly wouldn't have gotten an accurate take on the information he has from our media. Not sure fearing for your life is "cowardly" though.

Of course. Because that's what happened to Daniel Ellsberg and because that's what happens to every other celebrity who defies the American government. They all mysteriously disappear.No offense, but this post represents the root of the problem IMO: many of you have an unreasoning fear of our government. We do not live in Orwell's world.

You're pretty naive if you don't think the most powerful nation in the world wouldn't kill one individual to keep a secret this big from coming to light.

There are whistleblowers all the time. Daniel Ellsberg stayed in this country and lectured for years. If Snowden had revealed what he knew to the New York Times, he would have been prosecuted, and perhaps thrown in jail. But he wouldn't have been assassinated.

He takes what he knows to the NYT, they probably don't publish it.

 

[timschochet]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

 

[Nipsey]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

He specifically didn't go to The Times because he thought they may not publish the story.

 

[Politician Spock]

In all of those systems I mentioned, Politician Spock, you and I wouldn't be allowed to have this discussion in public, much less on an internet forum where anyone can read it. If we ever reach the day when our government doesn't allow us to have this sort of discussion, then I will agree with you.

The government doesn't care what is said in public as long as it knows everything that is said in private.

OK. Are you Mulder or Scully? That's all I need to know.

Ask the NSA. They know everything about me.

 

[timschochet]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

He specifically didn't go to The Times because he thought they may not publish the story.

That only proves he is as paranoid (or more so) than some of the people here. Of course they would have published it.

 

[Slapdash]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

The NYT sat on the wiretapping story for over year at the request of an administration they didn't even support. The Snowden materials are much more expansive than that and even foreign outlets have been hesitant. Throw in an administration that prosecutes whistle-blowers and spies on the press. Pretty straightforward.

 

[drummer]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

He specifically didn't go to The Times because he thought they may not publish the story.

That only proves he is as paranoid (or more so) than some of the people here. Of course they would have published it.

But way less ignorant than you. So there.

 

[Nipsey]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

He specifically didn't go to The Times because he thought they may not publish the story.

That only proves he is as paranoid (or more so) than some of the people here. Of course they would have published it.

They didn't publish something related to the NSA before the Snowden stuff. I'll find it.

 

[timschochet]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

The NYT sat on the wiretapping story for over year at the request of an administration they didn't even support. The Snowden materials are much more expansive than that and even foreign outlets have been hesitant. Throw in an administration that prosecutes whistle-blowers and spies on the press. Pretty straightforward.

Yeah it's straightforward, but not the way you're painting it. The NYT only sits on stories that they don't think they have corroborative evidence for. They don't sit on stories at an administration's "request". If they think it's newsworthy, they report it. "All the News that's fit to print."

Believe what you want, I'm quite sure I won't convince you guys of anything. In your world, the NYT and CNN and the rest are all willing tools/dupes of our dictatorial government. You might as well join Clive Bundy on the barricades.

 

[Nipsey]

Back in 2004, what did The Times know and what did they report or not report?

DAVID FOLKENFLIK, BYLINE: Well, so in fall of 2004, in fact, in October, Bill Keller, the executive editor then of The New York Times, was shown draft of articles written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau documenting a program run by the NSA - which is supposed to do, you know, surveillance abroad had been - and that it had been conducting widespread eavesdropping on Americans here domestically, in seeming violation of the law and the Constitution.

A bunch of editors were brought in fro briefings by, you know, government officials saying: My God, you cannot go with this story - you'll have blood on your hands. Finally, Bill Keller is brought in to the White House to talk to very senior officials there. And he decides not to publish. He ultimately decides that the warnings are so stark, are so dire, so strident that he takes their warnings very seriously, and doesn't publish the story until December or 2005.

 

[Politician Spock]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

He specifically didn't go to The Times because he thought they may not publish the story.

That only proves he is as paranoid (or more so) than some of the people here. Of course they would have published it.

Paranoia is why people desire that the government provide greater degrees of security.

It's ironic that you think those opposed to what the government is doing are the paranoid ones.

 

[drummer]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

The NYT sat on the wiretapping story for over year at the request of an administration they didn't even support. The Snowden materials are much more expansive than that and even foreign outlets have been hesitant. Throw in an administration that prosecutes whistle-blowers and spies on the press. Pretty straightforward.

Yeah it's straightforward, but not the way you're painting it. The NYT only sits on stories that they don't think they have corroborative evidence for. They don't sit on stories at an administration's "request". If they think it's newsworthy, they report it. "All the News that's fit to print."

Believe what you want, I'm quite sure I won't convince you guys of anything. In your world, the NYT and CNN and the rest are all willing tools/dupes of our dictatorial government. You might as well join Clive Bundy on the barricades.

tim. hold long can you hold your breath underneath all that sand?

 

[Nipsey]

Frontline just did a great 2 parter on all of this. Must see TV. Or watch it online.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

 

[timschochet]

Back in 2004, what did The Times know and what did they report or not report?

DAVID FOLKENFLIK, BYLINE: Well, so in fall of 2004, in fact, in October, Bill Keller, the executive editor then of The New York Times, was shown draft of articles written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau documenting a program run by the NSA - which is supposed to do, you know, surveillance abroad had been - and that it had been conducting widespread eavesdropping on Americans here domestically, in seeming violation of the law and the Constitution.

A bunch of editors were brought in fro briefings by, you know, government officials saying: My God, you cannot go with this story - you'll have blood on your hands. Finally, Bill Keller is brought in to the White House to talk to very senior officials there. And he decides not to publish. He ultimately decides that the warnings are so stark, are so dire, so strident that he takes their warnings very seriously, and doesn't publish the story until December or 2005.

What is the source for this please? And do you have a quote from Bill Keller confessing that he was indeed intimidated by high government officials into not publishing? Or testimony from the journalists directly involved? If you do, I'll give it more credence.

 

[drummer]

Frontline just did a great 2 parter on all of this. Must see TV. Or watch it online.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/

Yeah I saw the whole thing last night. Would answer a lot of questions from ignorant posters here (see:timtim)

 

[Nipsey]

Back in 2004, what did The Times know and what did they report or not report?

DAVID FOLKENFLIK, BYLINE: Well, so in fall of 2004, in fact, in October, Bill Keller, the executive editor then of The New York Times, was shown draft of articles written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau documenting a program run by the NSA - which is supposed to do, you know, surveillance abroad had been - and that it had been conducting widespread eavesdropping on Americans here domestically, in seeming violation of the law and the Constitution.

A bunch of editors were brought in fro briefings by, you know, government officials saying: My God, you cannot go with this story - you'll have blood on your hands. Finally, Bill Keller is brought in to the White House to talk to very senior officials there. And he decides not to publish. He ultimately decides that the warnings are so stark, are so dire, so strident that he takes their warnings very seriously, and doesn't publish the story until December or 2005.

What is the source for this please? And do you have a quote from Bill Keller confessing that he was indeed intimidated by high government officials into not publishing? Or testimony from the journalists directly involved? If you do, I'll give it more credence.

Google it. Its everywhere. Watch the Frontline episodes. You'll see things differently.

Here: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/14/nyt-nsa-leaks.html

 

[Slapdash]

What makes you assume that? The Times and the Post, among others, are known for reporting this sort of thing.

The NYT sat on the wiretapping story for over year at the request of an administration they didn't even support. The Snowden materials are much more expansive than that and even foreign outlets have been hesitant. Throw in an administration that prosecutes whistle-blowers and spies on the press. Pretty straightforward.

Yeah it's straightforward, but not the way you're painting it. The NYT only sits on stories that they don't think they have corroborative evidence for. They don't sit on stories at an administration's "request". If they think it's newsworthy, they report it. "All the News that's fit to print."

Believe what you want, I'm quite sure I won't convince you guys of anything. In your world, the NYT and CNN and the rest are all willing tools/dupes of our dictatorial government. You might as well join Clive Bundy on the barricades.

So your only response is pretending things didn't happen and repeating a slogan? Nice

 

[timschochet]

I'll watch the Frontline stuff when I get a chance.

 

[drummer]

I'll watch the Frontline stuff when I get a chance.

Translation: no I won't because I like to play dumb here.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

If any of the information he has is given to a foreign government, he should be put to death for treason.

Until this is aspect has been defined, I'm not sure how people can make a proper judgement. Leaking program information and stealing it are two very different things, what he may do to U.S. national security and international interests could be damaging for decades and irreversible. People seem to think the only info he has is on the U.S internal surveillance program, which is most certainly not the case. How can you call him a hero for having documents that may very well destroy your country?

If some IT guy has documents that destroys the country we have far bigger problems than Snowden.

Yeah, not sure how anything we have learned could destroy the country.

Seriously?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

How about coward?

I'm glad some of what he released is out in the open. I would feel better if it seemed like anyone with any real power in our government was doing something about it instead of just pumping out the daily rhetoric. But at least the average U.S. citizens now knows how far off the rails our government has gone, how healthy it is for us ALL to deeply mistrust them with our privacy and our Constitutional rights, and how dangerous the security for privacy swap is. The privacy "nuts" were vindicated I hope it wakes people up come election time. I also agree that there is no viable process for him to go through in order to blow the whistle on something this deep and harmful to so many in the higher echelons of government. I would fear for at least my livelihood and most likely my life.

Saying that, just because you want to expose some deep, dark secrets of the U.S. government that are harming your fellow citizens, you can't just indiscriminately grab every piece of Top Secret information you can get your hands on and then hold our government hostage with what you still have up your sleeve. He is basically bartering his own life and well being with the well being of our nation. That makes him a traitor. Whether we're happy with the ends, the means are not justified. We need security and the government does have to keep secrets, this is destructive to that entire process. Not to mention it has wreaked havoc with our foreign policy.

He had a third choice. He could have been a man and faced the music. The information could have been released through the U.S. media and gone through the media editing process. Even if he didn't go through the U.S. media and decided to send a drive off to Julian Assange, he still could have remained here and once the bomb dropped he could have stood up and faced the music. He could have walked into the NY times, the Fox Studios, or CNN and said "I'm here, I fear for my life, this is my story" and immediately gotten his story in front of the people. If Snowden stayed in the U.S. and went to prison here, he would have been a martyr. The international damage inflicted would have been minimized but the most important domestic revelations would have been released AND he would have garnered tons of support from privacy advocates on both the left and the right. He could have been a rallying point and hero to all pro-Constitution, privacy loving advocates. The fact that he is sitting under the protective shadow of Putin after passing through the protective embrace of China has killed any credibility he has. We have no way of knowing what he voluntarily or involuntarily has given away to our avowed enemies. We don't know what he still has yet to release, where it is, or whose hands have been on it.

While I agree he has helped our country in some ways I think he has harmed it as well. He had other options but he was too cowardly to take them.

I'm pretty confident, had he stayed in the US, he'd never see the inside of a prison. Some sort of "accident" would have occurred and we certainly wouldn't have gotten an accurate take on the information he has from our media. Not sure fearing for your life is "cowardly" though.

You guys are disappointingly paranoid.