General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?
June 24, 2013
Demonizing Edward Snowden: Which Side Are You On?
Posted by John Cassidy
...
More unnerving is the way in which various members of the media have failed to challenge the official line. Nobody should be surprised to see the New York Post running the headline: ROGUES GALLERY: SNOWDEN JOINS LONG LIST OF NOTORIOUS, GUTLESS TRAITORS FLEEING TO RUSSIA. But where are Snowdens defenders? As of Monday, the editorial pages of the Times and the Washington Post, the two most influential papers in the country, hadnt even addressed the Obama Administrations decision to charge Snowden with two counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of theft.
...
After being criticized on Twitter, Gregory said that he wasnt taking a position on Snowdens actions; he was merely asking a question. Im all for journalists asking awkward questions, too. But why arent more of them being directed at Hayden and Feinstein and Obama, who are clearly intent on attacking the messenger?
To get a different perspective on Snowden and his disclosures, heres a portion of an interview that ABCthe Australian Broadcasting Company, not the Disney subsidiarydid today with Thomas Drake, another former N.S.A. employee, who, in 2010, was charged with espionage for revealing details about an electronic-eavesdropping project called Trailblazer, a precursor to Operation Prism, one of the programs that Snowden documented. (The felony cases against Drake, as my colleague Jane Mayer has written, eventually collapsed, and he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.)
INTERVIEWER: Not everybody thinks Edward Snowden did the right thing. I presume you do
DRAKE: I consider Edward Snowden as a whistle-blower. I know some have called him a hero, some have called him a traitor. I focus on what he disclosed. I dont focus on him as a person. He had a belief that what he was exposed toU.S. actions in secretwere violating human rights and privacy on a very, very large scale, far beyond anything that had been admitted to date by the government. In the public interest, he made that available.
INTERVIEWER: What do you say to the argument, advanced by those with the opposite viewpoint to you, especially in the U.S. Congress and the White House, that Edward Snowden is a traitor who made a narcissistic decision that he personally had a right to decide what public information should be in the public domain?
DRAKE: Thats a government meme, a government coverthats a government story. The government is desperate to not deal with the actual exposures, the content of the disclosures. Because they do reveal a vast, systemic, institutionalized, industrial-scale Leviathan surveillance state that has clearly gone far beyond the original mandate to deal with terrorismfar beyond.
As far as Im concerned, that about covers it. I wish Snowden had followed Drakes example and remained on U.S. soil to fight the charges against him. But I cant condemn him for seeking refuge in some place that doesnt have an extradition treaty with the United States. If hed stayed here, he would almost certainly be in custody, with every prospect of staying in a cell until 2043 or later. The Obama Administration doesnt want him to come home and contribute to the debate about national security versus liberty that the President says is necessary. It wants to lock him up for a long time.
...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/06/demonizing-edward-snowden-which-side-are-you-on.html
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I can be pissed off about the NSA and still admit that Snowden broke the law.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Let's go fishin'.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)our Constitutional Rights? Eg, why do you think they are doing it? Is it for money, a lot of people believe it is for Big Business, this data mining of everyone in the US. Or is it for control of the population, some people believe that.
I'm with the 'follow the money' crowd. Especially when you take into account the revolving door between these huge multi billion dollar Security Corps like Booz Allen, Clapper's Corporation, Clapper, now Director of Intelligence. Does seem right to you?
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)some of the posters here we would find out why so many of them are anxious to distort the story away from the fact that the government is engaged is a massive spying operation upon it's citizens. They would like to make the story about Greenwald and Snowden and not the secret military industrial complex.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)That fucking thing lives in a river!!!!
The Goliath Fish is far more interesting than the Snowden Weasel.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Who knew?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I think he has a bit of a crush on that guy too.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)he collects them I hear . . .
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)awarded for the stand he took for our country against the Surveillance State. You haven't offered any opinion on the actual issue itself. Are you FOR or AGAINST the obvious violations of human rights and the Constitutional Rights of the American people?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The President doesn't agree with you btw, he says these are 'leaks'.
And if it was all public knowledge, then Snowden did nothing other than simply repeat what was out there already, right?
So which is it, is the President wrong, and this is all just old stuff everyone knew about? And the even more important question, since it is in violation of the Constitution, why was nothing done about it?
Are Wyden, Leahy, Nadler, Scott and all the other Dems wrong also? This is just 'old stuff'?
This is a discussion forum, it used to be a good one. Why do people, and no offense, but that includes you, not have any interest in discussing what the whole world is discussing?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The ones that were voted for Obama-Biden twice and got a good deal. GG-gate is strictly for the low-information "independent" crowd.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)programs. Sen. Leahy among others, John Conyers comes to mind, tried to do something about these illegal programs but, we were told, we would 'have to wait until we controlled Congress and the WH'. We did that, Obama was my candidate, he had not supported the Iraq war, and was eloquent on these issues, citing the Constitution regularly. I was impressed, after Bush who called it a 'quaint document' and muttered something about how he wished he could be a dictator, but that document, it was a pain for him.
You referred to a 'low information crowd'. I remember them, the Faux Viewers, they supported all these policies and slammed people like Sen Leahy, accused of him 'compromising National Security' and Conyers, I was one of the first people who posted on his blog and witnessed the vicious attacks on him for daring to stand up for the Constitution, re these Bush policies of spying on the American people.
I defended him, slammed those 'low information' people, advised him that it was okay to ban them. They were vicious in their defense of the Surveillance State, using disgusting racial epithets right on Conyers' blog. We urged him to block them, that it was okay to do so.
Conyers then wrote a book. I am proud to say I was part of that effort. The title was the 'The Constitution in Crisis' and Conyers in his daily blogs asked us for input re the abuses of the Bush Admin and we were more than happy to oblige.
We were Democrats, we defended the Constitution, this country, from policies that violated the Constitution .... but I edigress ...
Were you referring to ME as part of the 'low information crowd'? If so I will be more than happy to prove you wrong. Been accused of a lot more than that by Right Wingers so don't worry, it won't bother me in the least if that was your intention. But I WILL set THAT record straight, make no mistake about it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)would have no problem answering any question you might want to ask me.
A very wise, elderly woman told me once 'the truth never changes'. That is so true. Greenwald and I and millions of people around the world have been on the side of the facts for over a decade now. When you don't shift your position, it is not difficult to answer questions about it. I have observed that when someone finds themselves torn between the truth and loyalty to human entity, org, or individual, they tend to avoid discussions about what they claim, or claimed to believe in. That is a difficult position to be in. Which is why, sticking to the truth, the facts, and not being influenced by other factors, is always the best course. If nothing else, it makes life a lot easier. Just stick to the principles you claim to hold, and you cannot go wrong, no matter what is thrown your way..
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)What does that mean, exactly?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)That's not how this works.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And the latest beltway theory is hilarious
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)you are on the side of the, erh, uhm... unconstitution.
Time for we unconstitutionalismists to unite. Or else!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I don't think Snowden is a hero nor do I think he's a POS, but it's bigger than him.
He is just one man.
We need to take the focus off of him and put it on the people that are allowing the spying, phone taps, hacked e-mails, etc, to happen.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)an important issue:
Drake did everything according to the rules on Whistle Blowers, went through all the correct channels according to the book. And look what they did to him anyhow.
I'm sure he, more than anyone, understands the emptiness of the charge that 'Snowden should have used the Whistle Blower law'.
The Violations of Human Rights doesn't seem to bother some former supporters of Human Rights. Situational ethics, the kind the criminals, War Criminals, Wall St. Criminals depend on to keep them in business.
Anger towards these blind partisans is growing, on both sides, as it becomes more and more clear how they help the destruction of our rights and how they allow themselves to be used.
Autumn
(45,095 posts)break laws and get away with it. A sitting vice president and his cronies out a spy and her cover company. And that bastard still has the power to show his face and call Edward Snowden a traitor, a man who released information on this violation of our fourth amendment rights. Our President is continuing the policy that that man and his ilk have used to spy on American citizens and the republicans are pleased with him. Except for a couple, the Democrats are silent and in agreement.
Fuck that.
I'm glad he did it and I'm grateful for the discussion that it has started.
nt
magellan
(13,257 posts)Response to Autumn (Reply #7)
magellan This message was self-deleted by its author.
+1
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)And I don't expect whistleblowers to be martyrs. That is simply lame.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Snowden would be an idiot to stay here. I don't regard him as a big hero or as a traitor....I think he is a man who did what he thought was right.
All of the focus on Snowden and his employer, character, motives, etc. are a distraction from the real issue. Is, or is not, the government spying on American citizens? I think they are and have been for years and it's well past time for it to stop.
I was outraged over the Patriot Act and wrote many letters to my representatives - little good that did. I signed petitions, I called representatives, I wrote blog posts, all to no avail. Snowden's actions have brought things into the light of day and for that I am grateful.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)FTFY
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Three NSA whistleblowers confirm Snowden's story: Drake, Binney, and Wiebe.
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2428809
So, there is that.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)of the USA and the world who believe that the extent of US & British government surveillance as we now know it is absolutely, unequivocally, wrong.
I don't buy that Snowden operates under any other authority but his own. Edward Snowden was firmly on the side of we the people when he decided to do this IMO. Trash him all you want. Drag him around the village square. But I believe he acted from his own conscience and he did something that needed to be done. It was a brave act of civil disobedience. I like the Paul Revere analogy. We are at a crossroads for democracy.
randome
(34,845 posts)The truth is often more complicated than one 'side' over another.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)then you aren't being objective.
randome
(34,845 posts)I mean the guy admitted he spoke with Snowden in February and now says just the opposite.
Still, my opinion of even him can change given new evidence.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I've seen no evidence of that.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)trying to figure out why people are saying what you said it means when it doesn't necessarily mean what people are saying it means.
I've seen nothing that supports what you said.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
YOU GUYS ARE A HOOT!!!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)aquart
(69,014 posts)How would he applaud the breach of security and the violation of our laws, exactly?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Snowden, whatever his traits or flaws, seems to be the same.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You might try reading the blog post in full.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)It's about this: "More unnerving is the way in which various members of the media have failed to challenge the official line."
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I'm just watching this carwreck unfold.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I don't think this is going to be over soon, or be pretty.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>that Edward Snowden is a traitor who made a narcissistic decision that he personally had a right to decide what public information should be in the public domain? >>>>>
Rosa Parks? Dan Ellsberg? Mario Savio? The lunch counter sitters-in should have written letters to Woolworth corporate, I guess.
"Narcissistic"?
>>>DRAKE: Thats a government meme, a government coverthats a government story. The government is desperate to not deal with the actual exposures, the content of the disclosures. Because they do reveal a vast, systemic, institutionalized, industrial-scale Leviathan surveillance state that has clearly gone far beyond the original mandate to deal with terrorismfar beyond.>>>
That's:
>>>the government is desperate to not deal with the actual exposures, the content of the disclosures. >>>>
"Desperate."
Yeah. I noticed. And it's not just the government.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)And so far, the evidence that U.S. intelligence empire is out of our control is greater than any EVIDENCE that Snowden is damaging our interests.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)PufPuf23
(8,782 posts)of issues central to liberty, privacy, and government transparency.
I am for Snowden. I am for Bradley Manning too. Jessica Lynch has class for her age and response to how she was used by the MIC.
Connected people who flee to Dubai such as Halliburton and Xe (Blackwater) are the bottom feeders.
I can't believe that Snowden, Manning, nor Lynch had full understanding of their heroism and impact.
The imbedded with MIC blood cultists, war criminals, and war profiteers (Halliburton, Blackwater, and their kind) knew exactly wehat they were doing and did it for $$$.