Eugene Robinson: Important thing right now isn’t whether Snowden should be labeled hero or villain

[kpete]

Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks show we need a debate

The important thing right now isn’t whether Edward Snowden should be labeled a hero or villain. First, let’s have the debate he sparked over surveillance and privacy. Then we can decide how history should remember him.



In the coming debate, someone should explain why a mid-level computer guy working for a private contractor had access to so many of the NSA’s most closely held secrets. Someone should explain why the intelligence court is evidently so compliant. Someone should explain — perhaps in French, German and Spanish — why our allies’ e-mails are fair game for the agency’s prying eyes.

But here’s the big issue: The NSA, it now seems clear, is assembling an unimaginably vast trove of communications data, and the bigger it gets, the more useful it is in enabling analysts to make predictions. It’s one thing if the NSA looks for patterns in the data that suggest a nascent overseas terrorist group or an imminent attack. It’s another thing altogether if the agency observes, say, patterns that suggest the birth of the next tea party or Occupy Wall Street movement.

Is that paranoia? Then reassure me. Let’s talk about the big picture and decide, as citizens, whether we are comfortable with the direction our intelligence agencies are heading. And let’s remember that it was Snowden, not our elected officials, who opened this vital conversation.


the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-snowdens-nsa-leaks-show-we-need-a-debate/2013/06/10/002911b6-d203-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

[ProSense]

1. "he comes across as grandiose to the point of self-parody"

Snowden is the 29-year-old intelligence analyst and computer geek who leaked some of the National Security Agency’s most precious secrets to journalists from The Post and the Guardian. He is now on the lam, having checked out of the Hong Kong hotel where he holed up for several weeks as he orchestrated a worldwide media splash that shows no sign of ending.

Snowden betrayed his employer, the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, and his promise not to divulge classified information. He paints what he did as an act of civil disobedience, but he has decided to seek political asylum abroad rather than surrender to authorities and accept the consequences. In published interviews, he comes across as grandiose to the point of self-parody, a legend in his own mind.

He is an imperfect messenger, to say the least. But his message should not be ignored.

No one with any objectivity is going to defend this guy, and a pardon is highly unlikely.

'Pardon Edward Snowden' Petition Seeks White House Response
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022988977

AP Editor: Do Not Describe Edward Snowden As A 'Whistleblower'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022989251

"Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987178

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Robinson: Important thing right now isn’t whether Snowden should be labeled hero or villain

First, let’s have the debate he sparked over surveillance and privacy. Then we can decide how history should remember him."

Why do you insist on drawing the focus away from what Robinson is actually saying. You posted this as an OP as well, although you do not agree with Robinson, clearly to you what's important is the guy, Snowden, not the story, not the debate, but the man himself.
I agree with Robinson, he's not the important part of the story.
I note you don't have word one to offer about what Eugene Robinson actually wrote. Not one.

[uponit7771]

5. I disagree that he "sparked" anything, I'm not sparked by the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor

...or that Bush was an overt idiot.

Like the NSA Meta Data it was old news we found out 6 - 7 years ago.

I'm more pissed that stupid people has access and that people are focused on some shit they should've payed attention to years ago

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Show me where we were having this debate prior to his actions. We were not, because

elected officials, for the most part, were resistant to any debate or transparency of any sort. Robinson is saying that it was wrong for elected officials to evade this debate, he's leaving Snowden for another day. The point of Robinson's piece is that Snowden is not what is important, the debate is what is important. But for you, it is all about Snowden and I guess the word 'sparked' bothers you, although your reasons for being bothered by it are not very clear.
You want this to be about some guy. It's not. This is what Eugene Robinson is saying, you do not agree with him. You do not have to agree with him, feel free to attempt to make a huge issue smaller by pointing at some guy. It won't work, the issue is far too large for that. But the attempt is yours for the making.

[ProSense]

10. Me: Eric Snowden broke the law.

"Why do you insist on drawing the focus away from what Robinson is actually saying."

Wait, the quote I posted wasn't Robinson's?

"I note you don't have word one to offer about what Eugene Robinson actually wrote. Not one."

He said he didn't know about the phone data program. It has been in the news several times.

He reiterates that the PRISM is an overseas program. I agree.

My pointing out his characterization of Snowden doesn't prevent anyone from having a debate about the program.

I chose to focus on Snowden at this time, and I can still participate in the debate.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Robinson: Important thing right now isn’t whether Snowden should be labeled hero or villain

So to discuss Robinson's piece is counter to your focus on Snowden, I agree with Eugene, there is plenty of time for Snowden after dealing with actually important things.
And had our officials done the right things, we'd not be dealing with Snowden at all, and that is an important aspect as well.
I can see it bothers you that Eugene Robinson does not join you in claiming that some guy is the important part of this story. Like Eugene, I say Snowden is a secondary aspect of the story.
Snowden is not the important thing right now, the debate about the policies and programs is important.
Thankfully, people like Eugene are widely read and listened to. His skill precludes the possibility of hacks twisting his words to mean the opposite. Note the strong title of the piece, which all by itself says your focus is misplaced, poorly chosen and not the focus that will best serve the American people.
I agree with Robinson.

[ProSense]

13. Really?

"I can see it bothers you that Eugene Robinson does not join you in claiming that some guy is the important part of this story."

It appears you're projecting some discomfort. I have no problem with Robinson's opinion about focus.

You seem to think that his opinion means that I should abandon my own and that it's impossible to focus on both. He characterized Snowden, and I agree with his assessment. In fact, I've already made my own assessment.

"Most significant" leak in history, and likely one of the dumbest.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022987178

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Well, you posted Robinson's article as an OP, which you countered then you came to this

thread to do the same, clearly you have energy to place behind this, Eugene says correctly that Snowden is not what is important right now.
Your view is the opposite of Robinson's. And that bothers you, so you type and type, and I noticed that. I can point out such glaring inconsistency anytime I wish.

[ProSense]

15. Is

"Well, you posted Robinson's article as an OP, which you countered then you came to this thread to do the same, clearly you have energy to place behind this, Eugene says correctly that Snowden is not what is important right now."

...that against the rules?

"Your view is the opposite of Robinson's. And that bothers you, so you type and type, and I noticed that. I can point out such glaring inconsistency anytime I wish."

You keep insisting something "bothers" me when it'd clear that you're the one bothered by something.

You can point out a "glaring inconsistency" between my view and Robinson's?

Is there a rule that my opinion has to be consistent with Robinson's?

I agree with his assessment of Snowden, that apparently bothers you.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. The folks who want no debate have been working overtime and steaming like kettles

They will have a hard time digesting Mr Robinson's point of view that we need to have this conversation and that our elected officials should have started it. My Senators have tried, as have some others.

[rhett o rick]

4. This sums it up very well.

If there was a need for a discussion of surveillance and our Constitutional rights, why did we have to wait for someone like Snowden?

How does it happen that low level employees like Snowden and Pfc Manning get access to large amounts of data that we are told is so very important and potentially damaging? And shouldnt someone higher up the command chain be also responsible?

[kentuck]

7. All my life I have heard that "information is power".

Only now do I understand what they meant.

[dennis4868]

8. why does the media assume...

that Snowden is telling the truth in that he has access to all this information. Had this been confirmed yet?

[Whisp]

11. that doesn't sound right to me.

that any low ladder person like him could access 'all operatives all over the world' just like that. That sounds like huge smelling bullshit to me.

[Laelth]

16. Excellent essay. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Thanks to the bravery of Snowden we may now have that debate.

And, decide if we "cherish freedom" or embrace the illusion of "safety".