The problem with defending Snowden.

[ProSense]

It went from whistleblowing to a premeditated leak.

I wasn't against Snowden and was laughing when people called him a spy but...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023082447

He intentionally planned to steal the information, making the decision even before he had access to the information, He then stole it and misrepresented the program and other details via Glenn Greenwald.

Glenn Greenwald's 'Epic Botch'?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023012813

Greenwald is accusing President Obama of making "false" claims, but hasn't backed up his claims
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023041862

He then made the story about him, and his actions revealed that his goal was likely to embarrasss the United States.

NYT editor's blog: Snowden’s Questionable New Turn
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023034825

China Said to Have Made Call to Let Leaker Depart
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023078738

[mike_c]

1. I have no problem with that-- sunlight is the best disinfectant...

...and if the rot is there, then setting out to expose it is patriotic. Good for Snowden! I wish more people conscientiously investigated the government culture of secrecy. The press has largely let us down in that regard.

[ProSense]

2. You may not have a problem with it, but

"I have no problem with that-- sunlight is the best disinfectant..."

...it significantly impacts his status in terms of his actions.

[bluedigger]

3. Give it a rest, PS.

I think your many daily OP's about a fugitive from justice are obsessive and detract from the true issue of NSA surveillance on Americans. I doubt he has anything left of interest to divulge on that topic, and is a mere sidebar to the story.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Oh look...another board nanny trying to regulate what's posted on DU

Why? Don't like posts that expose Snowden The Great?

Well too bad.

[Cha]

46. GMTA!

[Logical]

76. Lol, you crack me up! n-t

[cali]

14. daily? More like every other hour or so. she's posted 75 Snowden ops. yep. 75

seems a little unbalanced, doesn't it?

[Skidmore]

24. *snort*

And your post count is what??

[cali]

35. I sure the hell haven't posted 75 ops about one person

[Denzil_DC]

34. You know, every time one of you tries to shut ProSense down, I rec the read,

even though I might not have otherwise. I hope others will do the same till it stops.

Seriously, the swarming's gotten way out of hand.

I don't act up on the many, many threads in support of Snowden, Greenwald, or discussion of substantive issues to do with all this, though I don't agree with many of them. Why do you feel driven to do so if people put forward different views?

Please stop making DU suck.

[Hekate]

48. Thanks for the reminder, Denzil

[Union Scribe]

53. Hey look, another activated dormant account.

sure are a lot of those lately!

[Denzil_DC]

67. Dormant? Another unfounded allegation.

I don't have a vast post count because I've only been posting here whenever I've felt I've got something to say, and if you look at the threads I've recced, you'll see my account's been far from "dormant."

What next, an insinuation or outright declaration that I'm being paid to post?

This is a great example of why DU currently sucks.

[Bluenorthwest]

84. Those who don't take part gain no standing, so when the fist thing they do is lecture

those who are part of the community it seems like a hubris sandwich on rye.

[Denzil_DC]

90. Luckily, it's not up to you to dictate how I or anybody else participate here,

nor who is an approved "part of the community."

Now go "lecture" somebody else with your board authoritarianism.


Today is 2 for 1 on scare quotes. get them while they're hot.

[Cha]

45. Too bad you think so.. who are you to tell a member of a politcal board to

"give it rest"?

I like the information.. so you can either "trash" the thread or simply ignore it. because, the OP is not going to listen you net nannies.

But, hey you kicked the thread so you're not being completely useless.

[okaawhatever]

57. I don't think any of us were aware you were the story police. The sheer arrogance of your

statement is alarming.

[karynnj]

128. Why are her ops obsessive, when you don't call the many making him the

DU hero du jour obsessive?

The fact is that he is the lead story or the near lead story in every paper. In addition, he has with Greenwald's help made US diplomacy more difficult. He may have destroyed the small opening to possible better relations with Russia - in minutes destroying the work of Obama, Kerry and other state department people. This is why his actions are not heroic, but traitorous.

I agree that he might have nothing that wasn't divulged yet - as I doubt that Russia, lead by the former head of the KGB didn't have a look at what he has. How could he stop them? Complain to the US embassy? - or the powerful Ecuadorian one?

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Exactly....he's definitely not a "whistleblower"

This was premeditated. He didn't suddenly become appalled by the NSA's practices and then become a whistleblower. His goal the whole time was to steal the classified information.

It's espionage.

[Historic NY]

111. Bingo....

even under the loosest interpretation of the governments whistle blower statute .

[siligut]

124. He became disenchanted with the NSA spying, but hoped Obama would intervene

When Obama didn't, Snowden took steps to expose it and find someone who would.

[siligut]

126. You know, you have to provide evidence if you are going to be successful

You can't just tell a story and expect people to believe you.

[grasswire]

6. the problem with defending Snowden's rights...

....is there's no money in it, as there apparently is in attacking him.

[Puzzledtraveller]

7. zing!

[11 Bravo]

8. And you know that Snowden's detractors are all being paid because the little voice talking ...

out of your asshole told you so?

[sibelian]

9. Nobody *knows* it Bravo, but... you know...

Why wouldn't they? It's not like they lack the cash. There's no way of knowing who it is, of course.

[Katashi_itto]

10. Only a few are being paid, those that have the biggest bang.

Much like this:
How the Pentagon manipulated the media to promote the Iraq war
The article provides a glimpse into the intimate connections between the government, military and mass media and the means by which they have attempted to package and sell a neo-colonial war to the US population.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/04/med-a25.html

It's not a hard thing. The Media is more than willing to go along with it.

The rest of the Snowden attackers are just useful idiots.

[Ikonoklast]

72. Prove to me that you aren't a hamster.

Don't like the message, smear the messenger.

Got it.

[Hekate]

49. Bravo, you owe me some screen cleaner

[Number23]

58. DAAAYYUM!!!!!!

[Major Hogwash]

79. Sounded like a dog whistle to me.

Maybe he thinks he is a whistle blower, too.

[great white snark]

96. Bravo Bravo.

[emulatorloo]

115. Karl Rove is probably DU's top $$$ contributor

with all the Fake "Progressives" he's funding to stir up shit here.

You BetterBelieveIt!

[ProSense]

12. Good thing about democracy: Opinions are free

Theft of classified information is a crime.

[sigmasix]

119. once again Prosense is correct and sensible

Snoden premeditated the theft of federal secrets and the uncovering of our agents in the field.
Snoden has proven his hatred for America and this president by aiding America's enemies in granting them access to over 2000 pages of American secrets. I know there are individuals that are ignorant enough to believe that other countries don't spy on us- they seem to be the same Glenn Greenwald worshippers and Teabagger-inspired Obama Derangment Syndrome carriers. Once the dust has settled over the "blame Obama crowd" these truths will be self-evident.
Thank you for your posts and replies Prosense- DU needs more clear thinkers like yourself to drown-out the whining and lies of all the transplanted freepers and Teabaggers here at DU.

[jeff47]

19. Which of Snowden's rights are being violated? Please be specific. (nt)

[davidpdx]

56. People are just being crybabies because he's been called out for what he is

a traitor to his own country, a thief, and a fugitive. None of his rights have been violated and they know that, which is why none of them have the balls to answer you. The only consequence thus far is the revocation of his passport, which is not that big of a deal. Most likely he'll be treated like a hero in Ecuador.

[Aerows]

33. Damn right. n/t

[RetroLounge]

66. ^^^ This

+1000

RL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Snowden is very naughty because he exposed the government (and corporation) snoops.

And, the ACLU and Amnesty International are very naughty for defending him.

[msongs]

13. the problem with defending killers who murder wedding parties using drones.

oh it's s"legal" so nevermind

[aquart]

30. Dear God, you want a vegan president!

You never suspected the US presidency comes soaked in blood? Seriously?

Did you also want Osama brought in for trial?

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Are you seriously suggesting a binary choice? Vegan or murderous of large wedding parties?

There is no nuance, no other choice? Vegan or 'soaked in the blood of innocents'? Does that strike you as a bit absurd and irrational? The extremist language, the radicalized verbiage, it is creepy shite.

[Life Long Dem]

16. Snowden is relevant

Snowden stole classified information that is OUR classified information. Such as phone data records of all the calls we have been making and then handing this over to Russia, and China. So yeah, I want Snowden caught before he leaks who knows what else on us.

Edit. I meant to post this to the OP post and posted it in the wrong post. Which I deleted.

[cali]

17. I'm impressed! 75 ops on Snowden from you in two weeks.

[ProSense]

21. Where did you get that number? n/t

[11 Bravo]

22. Equally impressive ... you have managed to respond to damned near all of them.

(Or at least all of the ones I have viewed. I'll take your word on the 75 posts.)

[Number23]

59. Okay, I swear I'm not stalking you but I was thinking the exact same thing

How stupid is it to whine about somebody making 75 threads on a topic when you have a) responded to EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM and b) are running pretty damn close to having 75 threads on the same topic yourself??!

[Hissyspit]

18. Lots of stretch there.

[Scurrilous]

20. K & R

[justiceischeap]

23. One thing I haven't seen mentioned about Snowden at all

is the fact that what he did probably goes against his contract he signed. There are probably criminal penalties outlined in that contract he had to sign. By that fact alone, he has broken the law. It's one thing to leak information about what the NSA is doing in the USA but then to take and release all the information he acquired about our spy programs abroad, goes beyond being the heroic whistleblower that some are trying to paint him as.

I mean, when Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA operative, people on DU had pitchforks in hand and were calling for blood. Snowden has done basically the same thing or at least intends to if you are to believe his own words. How does that make him a heroic whistleblower if he's endangering the lives of operatives all over the world. We're not talking just one person here (and that was bad enough).

What the NSA is doing to American citizens is deplorable but Snowden is no poster boy. He's committed/committing treason by divulging classified secrets to other countries.

[Hekate]

51. No "probably" about it at all.

He had a contract. He took an oath (or signed one). And he's in breach of just about everything.

I'm with you on this:
It's one thing to leak information about what the NSA is doing in the USA but then to take and release all the information he acquired about our spy programs abroad, goes beyond being the heroic whistleblower that some are trying to paint him as.

I'm still trying to understand who he is and why he's going about this the way he is. Some think this means I'm attacking him and am being paid to do so. Gee, I wish they'd hurry up and send me my alleged royalties!

[justiceischeap]

60. Some folks on DU only see black or white

in their world's there are no shades of grey. I personally can't understand how people can cheer him on when he's doing a national security info dump. I keep thinking of all those WWII propaganda posters....







And then I think about deep cover CIA operatives out in the field that Snowden may have identified to China and Russia (and goodness knows who else he plans to tell). This situation is hardly black and white and it's okay, IMO, to approve of one action and not the rest without being a "paid operative" of some sort.

[Just Saying]

108. This is exactly how I feel.

This situation is hardly black and white and it's okay, IMO, to approve of one action and not the rest without being a "paid operative" of some sort.

But people have taken up sides and despite the many threads it's virtually impossible to discuss what's going on because people start pointing fingers and calling names.

[tallahasseedem]

137. +1

[In Truth We Trust]

25. What a pathetic sense of morality you seem to have. You keep slamming a hero for the corporatists.

Nice diversion from the actual message SNOWDEN EXPOSED so you keep slamming the messenger. Transparent fail!

[ProSense]

26. Snowden plans more leaks...will let foreign press decide if leaks endanger Americans

Snowden plans more leaks...will let foreign press decide if leaks endanger Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023084875

"What a pathetic sense of morality you seem to have. You keep slamming a hero for the corporatists.

Nice diversion from the actual message SNOWDEN EXPOSED so you keep slamming the messenger. Transparent fail!"

Thanks for your insights.

[ljm2002]

27. I guess this is an improvement from your usual...

...this time at least you linked to ONE thread that was not your own.

Why do you find it necessary to make a new thread that points to a bunch of old threads? Are you unable to make your point in the original threads?

Seriously, this is just another way of spamming the board IMO.

[ProSense]

28. Well,

"Why do you find it necessary to make a new thread that points to a bunch of old threads? Are you unable to make your point in the original threads? "

...I'm free, don't need permission and I made my point.

Thanks for your question.

[ljm2002]

29. I asked you a question...

...and as usual you declined to answer the question asked, instead invoking your freedom to post as you please.

Well of course you are free to post as you please. And I'm free to note that what you are doing is essentially spamming the board by starting self-referential OPs.

[ProSense]

31. Yes

I asked you a question...

...and as usual you declined to answer the question asked, instead invoking your freedom to post as you please.

Well of course you are free to post as you please. And I'm free to note that what you are doing is essentially spamming the board by starting self-referential OPs.

...you are. Enjoy.

[ljm2002]

36. "Yes ...you are. Enjoy"

Thanks, I will:

ProSense, I believe that you are spamming this board by habitually posting OPs that consist of little more than links back to your own OPs. Furthermore, when you respond to others with the proverbial "word salad with blue link dressing" (*), where the blue links all go back to your own posts: that, also, is a form of spamming the board.

[ProSense]

39. Again

Thanks, I will:

ProSense, I believe that you are spamming this board by habitually posting OPs that consist of little more than links back to your own OPs. Furthermore, when you respond to others with the proverbial "word salad with blue link dressing" (*), where the blue links all go back to your own posts: that, also, is a form of spamming the board.

...thanks for your delightful insights.

[ljm2002]

42. You're welcome...

...delighted, I'm sure.

[bobduca]

86. "Thanks, I will"

[Bluenorthwest]

93. I agree, it is spam and not discussion. The basic disrespect for others is just mean.

It does well in terms of defining the ethics of the centrists....

[JackRiddler]

37. Good luck. Flooding the board like this shouldn't be allowed.

[ljm2002]

43. Thanks...

...every now and then I give it a go.

[bobduca]

88. its more than allowed

its officially sanctioned. And woe betide the suckers who speak this truth.

[Hekate]

50. So nice of you to kick this thread

[Romulus Quirinus]

113. I'm pretty sure she's an SEO bot that's spun out of control. nt

[HardTimes99]

117. LOL. Better an SEO bot than a CEO bot, I say! Still, good one! :) - nt

[galileoreloaded]

32. Its hard putting toothpaste back in the tube huh! nt

[grahamhgreen]

38. If you don't want to defend the constitution, you are playing on the wrong side. "I will support and

defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

[nessa]

40. Snowden is irrelevant. (nt)

.

[Dr Fate]

41. Is the DOJ prosecuting Cheney (Plame leaker) as a leaker or a whistleblower?

I keep forgetting.

[bravenak]

44. I find that you are doing an awesome job.

If the guy is so proud of what he's doing he should stop hiding.

[Cha]

47. And, Leaker Snowden's mentor, Greenwald, has runny egg all over

his face.

Flashback: When Andrew Sullivan suggested Snowden might have taken the Booz Allen job specifically to leak secrets, Glenn Greenwald called it a “moronic conspiracy theory.”

Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

Completely figures that Andrew Sullivan is channeling this moronic conspiracy theory - HE WORKED AT NSA SINCE 2009!!! http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/06/10/enter-the-media-martyr

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/42178_Edward_Snowden_Took_NSA_Job_Specifically_to_Steal_Secret_Documents

Who's the Moron now?!!!!

thanks for the OP, ProSense~

[Gravitycollapse]

52. And a few more dollars are deposited in ProSense's bank account.

Cha-ching.

[Hekate]

61. Alerted. Wonder if it gets to stand?

This is not the only accusation of paid trollery in this thread, just the most direct against the OP. It's not funny, and is not intended to be.It is completely inappropriate, imo.

[Hekate]

62. Oooh, that was quick! I'm impressed.

At Tue Jun 25, 2013, 02:49 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

And a few more dollars are deposited in ProSense's bank account.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3089587

The reason for the alert was:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

You added the following comments:

This is not the only accusation of paid trollery in this thread, just the most direct against the OP. It's not funny, and is not intended to be.It is completely inappropriate, imo.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this post at Tue Jun 25, 2013, 12:11 AM, and voted 3-3 to keep it.

Thank you.

[Gravitycollapse]

63. That's because people are tired of watching outright party shills manipulate information.

[Bobbie Jo]

65. Talk about manipulation

Tell it to the Paulbot brigade.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3084028

What a pathetic joke.

[karynnj]

129. It means that she has taken a strong, content heavy, articulate stand that is

- at the moment - around half of DU passionately believes in. So, when 6 random people are put on the jury for an alert that is rudely saying she is paid - which she isn't, half the people say leave it. However, this is a clear case of something that does violate the rules.

Wouldn't it be better to explain what the facts are? If you think the framing is wrong, challenge the facts - not the character of the person saying it.

[Hekate]

130. I've been checking the snail-mail for my royalty checks. I'm soooo disappointed there aren't any.

edit typo

[Logical]

80. Obviously people are sick of it. n-t

[HardTimes99]

118. I agree. As you'll see downthread, I disagree vehemently with ProSense on

the fundamentals, but I don't think it's right to accuse people of posting as a paid agent, unless one has evidence to support what is otherwise lttle better than a gross smear.

I still disagree with ProSense on this issue, but I adamantly support her right to voice her opinions free of such baseless allegations.

[Hekate]

131. That is courteous of you, and I appreciate it

It seems as though much of DU has become about character assassination of those one disagrees with. That did not used to be allowed.

[HardTimes99]

136. ACLU member here. We specialize in trying to protect the

rights (and good names) of people with whom we may disagree, even vehemently disagree

[Hekate]

138. May I shake your hand, then?

Here's to civil disagreement.

[bobduca]

112. Googlebombing is hard work

[Democracyinkind]

54. Can you really be that clueless?

By this metric, Manning isn't a whistleblower either.

The little respect I still had for "you", it has long gone ever since this story broke. And that's true even though I am extremely critical of Snowdens actions and intentions. But what you're doing... Is simply disgusting.

[ProSense]

68. "By this metric, Manning isn't a whistleblower either. "

[Democracyinkind]

69. Thought so.

[Bonobo]

55. Must

[SamKnause]

64. Snowden

I have no problem defending Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Baltasar Garzon, or Glenn Greenwald.

[SwampG8r]

70. yummy yum more spam

[ProSense]

71. Eat up, and thanks for kicking the thread.

[Ikonoklast]

73. Pro, since calling you a paid shill is now OK with DU's Angst Brigade, where can I sign up?

Seems that I've been pissing people off for free.

[ProSense]

74. LOL!

"Seems that I've been pissing people off for free."

Keep doing it, and you'll achieve your goal.

[Denzil_DC]

81. If you look at DU's site stats, traffic is way down,

like many left/leftish sites nowadays at this point in the election cycles.

That leaves the way clear for a tribal swarming cabal that's throwing these sorts of allegations around (and I was just accused of resurrecting a "dormant" account upthread simply for daring to pipe up with a sentiment another member didn't agree with) to attempt to grab dominance, including on jury service, since many folks who don't agree with them either don't visit and participate at the moment, or just go elsewhere when they see what's going on because they see it as a waste of time and energy.

For a bunch of self-proclaimed "antiauthoritarians," some are showing their true colors very clearly at the moment. It's attempted bullying, pure and simple.

ProSense can take it without my defending her, but since there's so much handwringing about "FOCUS ON THE ISSUES NOT PERSONALITIES!" I'm surprised these folks aren't using their time more productively than trying to squash what they see as "dissent" on this board by throwing around personal slurs--like lobbying their congresscritters about those issues, or at least posting numerous threads organizing strategies for doing that, for instance.

And yeah, I could use some $ myself.

[Logical]

75. Jesus, a new post to link to old posts! Spamming again! n-t

[ProSense]

77. OMG

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023083768#post70

..."spamming." It's today's word in obfuscation.

[Logical]

78. Is it an attention deal for you? Seriously? Bumping own posts....

Reposting your own posts?

[ProSense]

82. I love it!

Ah, freedom!

Why do you hate my freedom?

[idwiyo]

83. There is no "problem" but for the one in your mind, IMNSHO.

P.S. Your opinion is not the same as fact.

[ProSense]

85. "P.S. Your opinion is not the same as fact."

Really?

I'm crushed!

[idwiyo]

89. I can only wish you were! Unfortunately you can not admit that your posts are nothing else but your

opinion or regurgitation of official talking points. Otherwise you would be very careful to point that in your posts.

[ProSense]

92. Actually

"I can only wish you were! Unfortunately you can not admit that your posts are nothing else but your opinion or regurgitation of official talking points."

...I'm not the one afraid of my opinion. It appears to scare some silly. I can admit my opinions are my own, and the rest is your opinion.

See how that works?

[idwiyo]

95. I am looking forward to your next post where you'll admit its nothing else but your opinion.

Tough it's nice to know of course that you are not afraid of your own opinions.

[ProSense]

101. Yeah, because it will be hard to tell, right?

[idwiyo]

105. I am glad you can laugh at yourself. It's very refreshing. :)

[leveymg]

91. The problem w/your point is you still haven't established Espionage, which requires proof

he either knowingly acted as a foreign agent or proof of intent to harm the US. If other countries are acting opportunistically after the fact to help him, that still doesn't make it Espionage.

Premediated leaking is not, in itself, spying.

[ProSense]

97. The OP

"The problem w/your point is you still haven't established Espionage, which requires proof he either knowingly acted as a foreign agent or proof of intent to harm the US. If other countries are acting opportunistically after the fact to help him, that still doesn't make it Espionage."

...has nothing to do with "espionage." I said it went from whistleblowing to a premeditated leak. He committed a crime, and this confirms it.

"If other countries are acting opportunistically after the fact to help him, that still doesn't make it Espionage."

Yeah, if! The story is still unfolding. We learned it was premeditated. Who knows what else we'll learn.

[leveymg]

102. Of course it was premeditated - he didn't think it up after the fact or spill accidentally. Geez.

You're the one who said (to the effect of), "I used to laugh when people said it was spying" - which is just a round-about, weasel way of saying it was espionage.

[ProSense]

104. What? n/t

[leveymg]

107. Of course he committed a premediated crime. You imply he was "spying" - Espionage - wrong,

that has not been established by the facts we are aware of. It might well turn out that's what he was doing, but at this point, he's a leaker - the facts support a charge of unauthorized release of classified documents, but not Espionage, which is spying.

Don't conflate the two.

[ProSense]

110. No, you're the one

Of course he committed a premediated crime. You imply he was "spying" - Espionage - wrong,

that has not been established by the facts we are aware of. It might well turn out that's what he was doing, but at this point, he's a leaker - the facts support a charge of unauthorized release of classified documents, but not Espionage, which is spying.

Don't conflate the two.

...suggesting that the OP accuses him of "espionage."

[leveymg]

121. Quoting you: "I wasn't against Snowden and was laughing when people called him a spy but..."

Are you saying "spy" does not imply Espionage? Are you serious, or just playing more word games?

[ProSense]

123. Actually,

Quoting you: "I wasn't against Snowden and was laughing when people called him a spy but..."

...that's not me. The link was to a post quoting Snowden to indicate that it was premeditated.

[leveymg]

125. So that makes the little piece of innuendo about Espionage once removed, or twice?

Please . . .

[ProSense]

127. What?

"So that makes the little piece of innuendo about Espionage once removed, or twice?"

The OP is not about "espionage." I stated the point clearly up front: It went from whistleblowing to a premeditated leak.

No amount of trying to ignore that and put words in my mouth changes that.

[HardTimes99]

94. This is a distinction without a difference. Ellsberg's leak of the

Pentagon Papers "went from whistleblowing to premeditated leak" too. Are you throwing Ellsberg under the bus? Oh, wait, I've got it. Ellsberg leaked in a premeditated way when a Republican (Nixon) was President

Snowden worked in the National Security Arena for at least 4-5 years before joining BAH, plenty of time for the vomit to rise among any non-partisan defender of the plain meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Ellsberg himself recognizes that Snowden's leak is even more significant than his own. Hope I don't need to link to that for you. Just let me know if you'd like me to.

[ProSense]

100. No,

"This is a distinction without a difference. Ellsberg's leak of the

Pentagon Papers "went from whistleblowing to premeditated leak" too. Are you throwing Ellsberg under the bus? Oh, wait, I've got it. Ellsberg leaked in a premeditated way when a Republican (Nixon) was President"

...Ellsberg exposed actual wrongdoing, went through the appropriate channels, did not flee the country, and didn't reveal American foreign intelligence in other countries.

[HardTimes99]

106. If Ellsberg "went through the appropriate channels," then why was he prosecuted? Ellsberg

didn't flee the country probably b/c he needed to stay here to work with Neil Sheehan and other journalists to coordinate publication of the PP (which he had in hard-copy, having used newly emergent Xerox technology to make additional hard copies). Actually Ellsberg didn't expose 'actual wrongdoing' (unless a bi-partisan history and fabric of lying to the American public by politicians is 'wrongdoing'. Since the Pentagon Papers were historical in nature, going up only through 1967, they could only reveal stuff that had 'already happened.' But you can bet your ass they were read with a great deal of interest in the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam for what they revealed about the American decision-making process.

That's all by-the-by, though. I was really taking issue with your transparent attempt to smear Snowden by saying that somehow the act of 'premeditation' somehow renders his public service less valuable.

[ProSense]

109. Are you

If Ellsberg "went through the appropriate channels," then why was he prosecuted?

...denying that Ellsberg "went through the appropriate channels"? Snowden will be prosecuted because he broke the law.

Bruce Schneier:

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068663

" Ellsberg didn't flee the country probably b/c he needed to stay here to work with Neil Sheehan and other journalists to coordinate publication of the PP (which he had in hard-copy, having used newly emergent Xerox technology to make additional hard copies)."

Right, Ellberg didn't flee. Snowden di.

"Actually Ellsberg didn't expose 'actual wrongdoing' (unless a bi-partisan history and fabric of lying to the American public by politicians is 'wrongdoing'."

Wrongdoing is wrongdoing.

"Since the Pentagon Papers were historical in nature, going up only through 1967, they could only reveal stuff that had 'already happened.' But you can bet your ass they were read with a great deal of interest in the Soviet Union, China and Vietnam for what they revealed about the American decision-making process."

They were still released in this country, and did not involve releasing American foreign intelligence to other countries while inside those countries.


"That's all by-the-by, though. I was really taking issue with your transparent attempt to smear Snowden by saying that somehow the act of 'premeditation' somehow renders his public service less valuable."

And I'm taking issue with your "transparent attempt" to justify Snowden's actions and accuse others who disagree with you of an "attempt to smear" him.

[HardTimes99]

114. Ellsberg himself justifies Snowden's actions. When you use a word like

'premeditated' (with all that word connotes as well as denotes), you open yourself up to the 'smear' charge. It's reminiscent of calling someone a 'card-carrying member of the Communist Party." I believe the phrase used (in both cases) would be 'false canard'.

[ProSense]

116. Oh please

"Ellsberg himself justifies Snowden's actions. When you use a word like 'premeditated' (with all that word connotes as well as denotes), you open yourself up to the 'smear' charge."

...I didn't indicate that I had to agree with everythin Ellsberg says or does. I don't agree with him on Snowden. It was premeditated. He planned it ahead of getting the job. Look up the word. I didn't invent it.

"It's reminiscent of calling someone a 'card-carrying member of the Communist Party. 'I believe the phrase used (in both cases) would be 'false canard'."

WTF? Saying someone's actions are premeditated is "reminiscent of calling someone a 'card-carrying member of the Communist Party"?

You can't be serious.

[HardTimes99]

120. I don't think I'm expressing myself or my feelings very clearly. I'm going to

back away from this for a few hours and let the coffee kick in and then respond again.

[RobinA]

132. "Appropriate Channels"?

This is just crazy. What are the appropriate channels for exposing classified information? Ellsberg shopped his documents all over the place until he found a taker. Ellsberg didn't flee because at the time we didn't have a recent precedent of denying due process to leakers. The entire New York Times case with its many appeals up and down the many levels of the court system was about exactly foreign intelligence. At least, that was the government's argument.

[BklnDem75]

98. Kick & Rec

[great white snark]

99. Too bad Greenwald is a former disgraced attorney and not a publicist.

Nevertheless I see an attempt to resuscitate Snowden's image in the near future.

[leveymg]

103. Disgraced? Are you implying Greenwald was disbarred?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

122. That's a YP, not an MP

Your problem, not my problem.

[hughee99]

134. YP, MP, I don't know all of this industry jargon. n/t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

140. Couldn't resist

One of my favorite movies... The whole cast was awesome in that.

[hughee99]

133. If you think what he claims is evidence of an illegal program, or of government abusing

it's power, then it doesn't really matter whether he "blew the whistle" after finding out, or went in with the intention of exposing it, does it?

The problem with personal attacks on Snowden (like, for example, "he's a coward who should come back to the US and face justice if he really believes what he did was right&quot is that you REALLY end up looking like you'll say almost anything to avoid discussing the substance of what was revealed, or at least alleged.

[ProSense]

135. Well,

"If you think what he claims is evidence of an illegal program, or of government abusing it's power, then it doesn't really matter whether he "blew the whistle" after finding out, or went in with the intention of exposing it, does it?"

...if you think that, it still matters. Leaking classified information is a crime.

Bruce Schneier:

Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate; it's something everyone with a security clearance knows. It's written in plain English on the documents you have to sign when you get a security clearance, and it's part of the culture. The law is there for a good reason, and secrecy has an important role in military defense.

But before the Justice Department prosecutes Snowden, there are some other investigations that ought to happen.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/prosecuting_sno.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068663

Taking a job with the intent of leaking classified information doesn't help his case.

Still, none of the charges you mentioned apply to Snowden's leak, which why some are claiming that he is a whistleblower because he "believed" it to be illegal.

Add that to the fact that he planned to leak the information, and he really screwed himself.

[hughee99]

139. You can argue about this with respect to his credibility,

but if someone already finds his claims credible (for whatever reason, justified or not) than nothing you say about Snowden's motivations is going to convince them otherwise. Snowden may have screwed himself, but the question the media is focusing on, "What's going to happen to Snowden?" is secondary in many DUers minds to the questions "Are his claims accurate?", "Can the government legally do this?" and "SHOULD the government be able to legally do this?".

Maybe Snowden is a whistleblower, maybe he's a traitor, maybe he'll stay in some foreign country or maybe he'll come back to the US. Maybe he'll go to prison or maybe he'll do the talk-show circuit. I don't really give a shit about any of it. I'm more interested in what he's been alleging has and does occur under the guise of "keeping us safe".

[ProSense]

142. True,

You can argue about this with respect to his credibility, but if someone already finds his claims credible (for whatever reason, justified or not) than nothing you say about Snowden's motivations is going to convince them otherwise. Snowden may have screwed himself, but the question the media is focusing on, "What's going to happen to Snowden?" is secondary in many DUers minds to the questions "Are his claims accurate?", "Can the government legally do this?" and "SHOULD the government be able to legally do this?".

Maybe Snowden is a whistleblower, maybe he's a traitor, maybe he'll stay in some foreign country or maybe he'll come back to the US. Maybe he'll go to prison or maybe he'll do the talk-show circuit. I don't really give a shit about any of it. I'm more interested in what he's been alleging has and does occur under the guise of "keeping us safe".

...and for many, the inaccuracies are glaring, and in some instances appear to be intentional manipulations for maximum impact.

[Octafish]

141. The problem with NOT defending Snowden...

Democracy dies.

[ProSense]

143. Oh, he's due a fair trial. n/t

[Octafish]

144. Of course. Like Don Siegelman.

Real Just-us these days, huh?

[ProSense]

145. Are you saying there are no fair trials?

Snowden is due a fair trial. I can pick someone who had one, but what would be the point?

[Octafish]

146. I'm saying that the Department of Justice railroaded Don Siegelman.

They ignore the crimes of the connected. Perhaps you missed the story:

Know your BFEE: Siegelman Judge is a big-time War Profiteer

The point is that there are two types of justice in the United States -- the connected get one form and those who aren't connected get the other.

Which one do you think Snowden will get?