Sanders (re-posting from National Journal): Why I Don't Care About Edward Snowden

[Pale Blue Dot]

Is Edward Snowden a hero or a traitor? I don't care. You read right: I don't give a whit about the man who exposed two sweeping U.S. online surveillance programs, nor do I worry much about his verdict in the court of public opinion.

Why? Because it is the wrong question. The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.
For the rest of us, the questions seem to be:

Are the two programs revealed by Snowden legal and constitutional?

What else is the government doing to invade our privacy? Until a few days ago, paranoids were people who claimed Washington had cast a vast electronic net over our communications. Who isn't a bit paranoid now?

Why did the U.S. government for years debunk what they called a myth about the National Security Agency seizing electronic data from millions of Americans?

Why did the leader of the U.S. intelligence community mislead Congress in March by answering a question about the program in the "least untruthful manner" -- a phrase that would make George Orwell cringe.

Why do Democratic lawmakers who criticized President Bush for exploiting the post-9/11 Patriot Act now defend President Obama for curbing civil liberties?

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ce874a42-a367-452f-afd0-fe76282426fa

Much more at the link.

[Autumn]

1. Bernie

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Bada bing!

Bernie is exactly correct. In regard to what we know about the NSA total electronic data collection, Snowden is no longer relevant.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. According to ProSense, the article Bernie endorses goes on to caution that some spying may be ok

Depending on if it's needed to catch terraists.

A majority of the American public can't be wrong. ~_~

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Correct.

Like Drake before him, the WH will try to make it about the traitor, not the issue at hand.

[snot]

42. Ditto Assange and Manning.

[limpyhobbler]

4. Right. But it's also good to support those who take personal risk to reveal gov't abuses.

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)

The individual may turn out to be despicable once we have more information.

I don't have to like him personally to say I support what he did in this one instance.

[Curmudgeoness]

13. He may turn out to be despicable,

but I am not sure how we will know what is true and what is fabricated to make him look bad. At this point, I completely expect him to be vilified.....true or not.

I guess this is me:

[ProSense]

5. This is not Senator Sanders. It's Ron Fournier.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-i-don-t-care-about-edward-snowden-20130612

[Fuddnik]

17. Obviously Sen Sanders agreed with it and posted it on his Senate website.

[ProSense]

23. Maybe, but

"Obviously Sen Sanders agreed with it and posted it on his Senate website."

...it still isn't Senator Sanders.

Look at the questions and this point:

•Are the two programs revealed by Snowden legal and constitutional?

<...>

•Why do Democratic lawmakers who criticized President Bush for exploiting the post-9/11 Patriot Act now defend President Obama for curbing civil liberties?

•Why do Republicans who defended Bush now chastise Obama for ruthlessly fighting terrorists?

<...>

No sane American would deny the president and the national security community the best tools to fight a fast-evolving and shadowy enemy. It would be foolish to demand full disclosure of programs that require secrecy. And most Americans, according to polls, are open to trading some privacy for security.

<...>

I'd say that second point above is Bush apologia. I'm sure Fournier knows that the criticisim was primarily for Bush's illegal eavesdropping on Americans.

The next point is Fournier showing his true colors. He really is for this.

Doubt it, look at the statement on the polls.

Do you think Sanders agrees with those points?

[Fuddnik]

24. That's the best you can do?

[ProSense]

26. Are you laughing because you have no counter?

It still isn't Sanders.

[MADem]

54. I'd like to know if Sanders took the intel briefings, like Franken did?

I do think the briefings color one's perceptions of the program.

[madokie]

27. Its a lot better than what you've come up with

[sabrina 1]

28. I don't care whether Sanders or anyone else agrees with it. There is only ONE ISSUE here no matter

how hard you all try to bury it with smoke and mirrors, and that is, we are being spied on and the President has admitted it, confirmed it. Additionally this president for whom we worked so hard, hoping to rid this country of Bush policies, told us this week, INCREDIBLY, that we 'cannot have 100% security without giving up some of our rights'' That floored me, it sounded like something Bush might say and if he did, and I believe even he was more careful than to say it out loud, although I could be wrong, this forum would be on fire with outrage.

Do you think you are helping anyone by trying to distract from an issue that is so important to this democracy??

[ProSense]

30. No,

I don't care whether Sanders or anyone else agrees with it. There is only ONE ISSUE here no matter

how hard you all try to bury it with smoke and mirrors, and that is, we are being spied on and the President has admitted it, confirmed it. Additionally this president for whom we worked so hard, hoping to rid this country of Bush policies, told us this week, INCREDIBLY, that we 'cannot have 100% security without giving up some of our rights'' That floored me, it sounded like something Bush might say and if he did, and I believe even he was more careful than to say it out loud, although I could be wrong, this forum would be on fire with outrage.

Do you think you are helping anyone by trying to distract from an issue that is so important to this democracy??

...there are several issues. You don't get to decide what other people consider the issues. You don't care if "Sanders or anyone else agrees with it"? My point was that it isn't Sanders. Evidently, that fact matters.

[NorthCarolina]

31. ..

"Evidently, that fact matters."

Only to you apparently.

[ProSense]

32. "I don't care whether Sanders or anyone else agrees with it."

That was the other poster's comment.

You:

"Evidently, that fact matters."


Only to you apparently.

I suppose it's possible that Senator Sanders could disagree with himself.

[Laelth]

48. It matters to me who said it, fwiw. n/t

-Laelth

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. Is that an NSA talking point?

[SunSeeker]

34. And would Bernie agree with the suggestion that Obama is smearing Snowden to "deflect attention"?

The Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception,...

I don't recall Obama or anyone in the White House carrying on about Snowden's background. I can't imagine Bernie saying such an inflammatory statement about Obama. Nor do I believe Bernie agrees with every word of any article just because it appears on his news page. It is the MSM, who rightfully is looking into what this guy is all about and what his motivations are.

And the reason Snowden is in the news today is because he told a Chinese newspaper how the US conducts electronic surveillance on China. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Cha]

40. But, it does sound like mediahackwhore, Ron Fournier

[marions ghost]

50. Nothing in the article says Snowden gave any

NSA secrets to China. I think China knows the US conducts surveillance on them. Duh. But the American people did not know that our own government treats us just like it does China.

--I recommend the CNN article because it gives a good quick explanation of how our government has lied to us repeatedly.

[SunSeeker]

67. Yes, he did give up secrets. He described how our China surveillance system works.

U.S. intelligence agents have been hacking computer networks around the world for years, apparently targeting fat data pipes that push immense amounts of data around the Internet, NSA leaker Edward Snowden told the South China Morning Post on Wednesday.

Among some 61,000 reported targets of the National Security Agency, Snowden said, are hundreds of computers in China -- which U.S. officials have increasingly criticized as the source of thousands of attacks on U.S. military and commercial networks. China has denied such attacks.

The Morning Post said it had seen documents provided by Snowden but was unable to verify their authenticity. The English-language news agency, which operates in Hong Kong, also said it was unable to independently verify allegations of U.S. hacking of networks in Hong Kong and mainland China since 2009.

Snowden told the paper that some of the targets included the Chinese University of Hong Kong, public officials and students. The documents also "point to hacking activity by the NSA against mainland targets," the newspaper reported.

...

In the Morning Post interview -- published one week after the British newspaper The Guardian revealed the first leaks attributed to Snowden -- he claimed the agency he once worked for as a contractor typically targets high-bandwidth data lines that connect Internet nodes located around the world.

"We hack network backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one," the newspaper quoted him as saying.

A "backbone" is part of the inner workings of a computer network that links different parts of that network. It is used to deliver data from one part of the network to another and, as such, could expose data from multiple computers if hacked.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Maybe the Chinese knew this, but even it they did, he helped them in their propaganda war against the US by publicly confirming it--RIGHT when the Chinese were negotiating with the US over stopping pretty outrageous Chinese hacking--everything from industrial espionage that hurts our industries, to listening in on the Obama and McCain campaigns.

The NSA has been spying on Americans since its inception in the 1950s. I recommend The Puzzle Palace; a decades old book that gives a chilling history of the NSA--and demonstrates that NO ONE should be surprised by what is going on now at the NSA.

[marions ghost]

68. The way I see it

We hack the Chinese & the Chinese hack us. That has been going on for a long time. Why should the Chinese stop hacking us if they actually know we hack them? The "outrageous" Chinese hacking is obviously matched by our outrageous hacking. Everybody knows this regardless of what Snowden has said. There is no evidence so far that he has revealed anything everybody doesn't know--he only made it PUBLIC knowledge.

As for your other point--it's not the fact that they are doing it--it's the fact that we have lost any protection against abuse, protections that once were there. Rachel Maddow did a good piece on this about the Church Committee, which (after the excesses of the 50's-60's) instituted laws for protections of Americans. These laws were targeted for dismantling by Rumsfeld pre and post 9-11. Since Bush, all real protections are gone:

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

[SunSeeker]

69. "Everybody knows this regardless of what Snowden has said."

Well, I can agree on that. And yet so many here act like this is news.

But seriously, in your effort to defend Snowden, you take China's side, repeating their propaganda that they do nothing we don't do. China does massive industrial spying, stealing secrets from our industries--resulting in massive copyright infringement and counterfeiting of American goods. This hurts our industries. That is outrageous. We do not do that to China. That is what our surveillance of China is trying to stop, along with their hacking of our government computers. To claim that our country's surveillance of China is "outrageous hacking" in this context is simply wrong.

[snagglepuss]

72. Absolutely bang on. nt

[marions ghost]

75. We agree

[OnyxCollie]

41. Barack Obama is the biggest Bush apologist.

Since he voted to make Bush's wiretapping legal, and squashed investigations both here and abroad of the torture sanctioned by Bush.

[bowens43]

76. ROFLMAO!! Your defense of the abuses by this administartion is bordering on lunacy

[quakerboy]

19. It still strikes at the heart of the matter. NT

[Laelth]

47. Thanks for the clarification, Pro. n/t

-Laelth

[Skittles]

6. BINGO

[GoneOffShore]

7. Thank you!

[Catherina]

8. It's the wrong question all right but I still care about Edward Snowden

I know what Bernie means and agree with him, that's why I don't care about invading his girlfriend's privacy, his shoe size or how he cuts his toenails. But I do care about him because he's up, pretty much defenseless, against the entire hateful, vindictive, immoral, mass-murdering MIC right now.

Rec'd/

[sabrina 1]

29. Well said, Catherina. Sometimes I think this country is completely lost. The American people

seem to have been so cowed by fear and propaganda and partisanship, that way too many of them are willing to sell this country and presumed innocent people to the highest bidder.

The point is, whatever the truth about Snowden, it has ZERO to do with the main issue and we will keep focusing on that, no matter how hard they try to distract us from it.

[Catherina]

38. Zero, zilch, nada!

I think it's great though that they're all showing their hands now. This is one of those defining moments when you really know who's on your side. Lots of masks have been coming off and I think that's a great thing.

[Maedhros]

60. Al Franken surprised me.

I expected better from him.

[Enthusiast]

44. You got it.

It's the fear and propaganda and partisanship. It is being fostered by an enormous propaganda mechanism - the greatest propaganda mechanism in all of history.

I think this is actually a bigger story than NSA surveillance, the coordinated national media misinformation & smoke screen mechanism. It extends to every facet of American media including this very internet site. And tax payers are paying for it.

[Laelth]

49. Interesting point. n/t

-Laelth

[snagglepuss]

73. ^^^^This^^^^

[RILib]

53. Exactly, Catarina.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Well said.

[BlueCheese]

9. I don't understand the mentality that if only we crush Snowden enough...

... the facts of the two programs will cease to be true.

Just because they got Galileo to recant didn't stop the earth from orbiting the sun.

[BrotherIvan]

10. Yup!

The White House is not denying the program exists. They are just trying to get everyone to calm down and swallow giving up their Constitutional Rights for "protection".

[Canuckistanian]

20. Exactly!

Snowden is about to be given the Manning treatment simply by providing proof of the extent of a spying program we already had a good idea existed??

Where's the damage here, besides the poutrage of authoritarian types?

[Puzzledtraveller]

66. ^^this^^

right on the mark!

[snagglepuss]

74. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. eh.

[Myrina]

12. Bullseye!!

Thank you, Bernie!!

[WillyT]

14. THANK YOU !!! - K & R !!!

[LondonReign2]

15. Kick

This Founier guy...is he unfriendly with his neighbors?

[Fuddnik]

16. Bernie hits a home run.....again.

[East Coast Pirate]

18. Bernie Sanders has obviously been brainwashed by Glenn Greenwald

[LaydeeBug]

21. I feel I am among my people now. nt

[LWolf]

22. K&R

[cantbeserious]

25. Yes - Bernie On Point And Focused

eom

[forestpath]

33. K&R

[morningfog]

35. Same thing I've been saying on DU for days.

The man speaks truth.

[thucythucy]

36. I think the most important question now

Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)

is: where do we go from here?

Or alternately: how do we get to the bottom of this story in a way that is both credible and not terrifically damaging to our national interests?

I don't want a Ken Starr "independent prosecutor" type whose job will be to destroy the Obama administration.

On the other hand, I don't want a whitewash commission that conducts a bunch of secret hearings, recommends some cosmetic changes, and has us all pretending this never happened.

For me, the best possible solution would be to bring both the Patriot Act and FISA up for reconsideration, and if necessary repeal them both and start over, only this time not pass something that most of those voting haven't even read.

Edited to add: one possible solution is a US Supreme Court decision that rules such data sifting clearly and unequivocably unconstitutional. This may take years, but a well crafted legal challenge to these programs could well be our best hope.

Unfortunately, this Congress seems incapable of ordering its own lunch without gridlock and psycho-drama, let alone conducting a serious national debate.

Perhaps Senator Sanders might offer some suggestions? Perhaps President Obama can get ahead of this, and use this controversy to start dismantling "the national security state" to the extent possible? If every crisis is an opportunity, then this is an opportunity to try to bring some semblance of sanity back to how this nation tries to defend itself.

I know, I know. This probably ain't gonna happen. But we have to start somewhere.

[me b zola]

37. K&R

[Catherina]

39. Thanks for posting this here. Bernie's one of the few whose intentions I trust anymore

Lots of congress critters are going to get all dramatic as they come rushing out with tubes of lipstick, mascara and foundation for this NSA scandal pig. They can go to hell.

I want the guys with the axe.

[Dr Fate]

43. Great. Now Hong Kong Bernie is deflecting this back on Obama.

I thought he was on our side.

[LondonReign2]

55. Almost as good as Third Way Manny

[SomethingFishy]

71. The depends on your definition of "our"

Judging from his comments he is certainly on my side..

[Laelth]

45. Good questions. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[faithnomore]

46. Once again Bernie is the voice of reason.

Unfortunately, his kind of candor is of little value to those in Washington.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Exactly right. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

52. I disagree.

The President has spoken explicitly about sheltering whistleblowers. By doing so (or claiming so) it was made a valid issue. So the question of Snowden's motives is relevant, but Sanders IS correct that it is a side issue to the question of whether these revealed programs are lawful or necessary.

The Snowden narrative is relevant to the President's personal credibility, and whether we will see honest whistleblowers encouraged or discouraged by this particular result.

[grahamhgreen]

56. It's an ad hominem attack, is all. Standard RW attactics.

[lark]

58. As usual, Bernie gets it right

The cult of personality here are totally piling on Snowden because he has suggested that Obama isn't perfect - how dare Snowden disrespect their idol??? Doesn't everyone know that Obama is perfection incarnate?

[Maedhros]

61. It is a disturbing trend in our political culture.

All issues have become personal. Any given bill, law or policy is judged solely by who proposes and supports it.

Take Obama's health care reform- it's bad policy, at cross purposes to what 70%+ of Americans wanted and essentially a Romney proposal with the numbers filed off, but "liberals" support it because it's Obama's policy and "conservatives" hate it for the same reason.

In a functioning democracy we'd get what 70%+ of the citizenry wants: single-payer (or at least a public option).

[CarmanK]

59. Senator Sanders is right, what the real scandal is the breadth of the data collection on AMS.

We the people are the govt and we must protect our rights to privacy. We cannot surrender our rights out of fear. In AM, more people have died from home grown NUT cases with guns than from real terrorists attacks. We have to take our safety seriously, but we need to first make our streets safe from the gangs and thugs who would kill randomly for fun. I am not so worried about Snowdon, time will reveal the merits of what he has done in good conscience.

[Catherina]

62. That and the way they deliberately outsourced it to private corporations

who, unlike the government, aren't bound by any constitutional amendments.

Weasels, the whole lot of them. And then when Sanders is asked a direct question like "is NSA doing x or x" he can, as least untruthfully as he can, say "no we're not" because private corporations are doing it for them and sharing the information with them.

[LovingA2andMI]

63. Senator Bernie Sanders....

IS THE BEST!!!!

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. k&r

[marmar]

70. Hammer meets nail.

k/r