General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden speaks..or maybe not..
Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)
**UPDATED**
Within minutes of Edward Snowden releasing his first statement after eight days of silence, published on Wikileaks website, a number of journalists and others noticed something strange.
The language in the statement, between accusations that the Obama administration was employing political aggression and feared an informed, angry public, seemed to betray a tinge of non-American English. It was this line that first jumped out: For decades the United States of America have been one of the strongest defenders of the human right to seek asylum. As Slates Farhad Manjoo pointed out on Twitter, Americans refer to the United States as singular, rather than plural: one would expect Snowden, an American, to write the United States of America has been.
Alone, that wouldnt seem to say much. But there were other details, such as the date on the letter, appended as 1st July 2013? rather than the typical American style. But maybe most eyebrow-raising of all is the statements fiery tone and dramatic cadence. Without any judicial order, the administration now seeks to stop me exercising a basic right. A right that belongs to everybody. The right to seek asylum, the statement reads, a far cry from the straightforward, plainspoken voice Snowden has used in all other public comments.
The statements tone and word choice seems conspicuously similar to that of Julian Assange, the Australian and Wikileaks chief who has developed a reputation for his extremely distinctive writing style.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/01/some-see-julian-assanges-hand-in-new-snowden-statement/
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Given the fact that he feels that he is a human-rights defender, he is unlikely to stop such work, so that is why he should choose a country of destination and go there, Putin said yesterday. When that will happen, unfortunately, I dont know.
No rest for the weary!
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)((My prediction: Several very sensitive, delicate souls will put you on ignore after that post. And you will give nary a fuck.))
dionysus
(26,467 posts)brentspeak
(18,290 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)THAT would get alot more exposure than running.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)How is he supposed to speak after he's gagged?
Incredible.
Pathetic, really.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)expose this. Imagine he gets a lawyer to directly make a case for the NSAs actions being unconstitutional. THIS is the debate.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)..but this showboater is too busy saying all the right buzzwords to whip of the fear of his safety. He's not really interested in maximizing coverage of the NSA, IMO.
It's just a load of bullshit to avoid facing the prospect of prison time.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)and the fastest way to change legislation such as this would be in court. Hearing the legalities or illegalities of it would clear up alot of confusion and over-the-top hyperbole.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)He could speak out just like all those other political prisoners, right?
This really is pathetic beyond belief.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The Pres would be a good one to start the debate. We can interview the whistle-blower better if he isnt being held incommunicado in a max security prison. Those that want all attention on the whistle-blowers, or in this case, whistle-blowers, journalists, open-minded Congress people, want to limit the debate by bully those that are interested in transparency and further investigations.
It is terribly naive to believe that the spy agencies dont step over the line, especially if they can rationalize that it's legal.
Open-minded, politically liberal people should want to find out what is going on and not sweep it under the rug.
How many whistle-blowers, investigative journalists, liberal Congress people, will it take before you agree there just might be a problem?
randome
(34,845 posts)How many more PowerPoint slides will we need to wade through?
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tell the whole story anyway. They are of course made to show adherence to the law. We need to investigate exactly what they are doing. Clapper admitted that there was a "library" of data available. Just because they dont read every bit doesnt change the fact that their surveillance captured it all. Perfect tool to be abused if in the hands of the wrong people, like Republicans.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Huh?
"Although I am convicted of nothing, it has unilaterally revoked my passport..."
Is this guy fucking stupid or something? Welcome to being formally charged with a felony. Nearly everyone released on bail (pre-conviction) relinquishes his or her passport. Did he expect the US government to continue the passport of a wanted fugitive known to be traveling abroad? Whether we agree with the charges or not, it is a simple fact that this man is wanted to face felony charges, and is known to be abroad. I'm not sure why he thinks he's received some special kind of action with respect to his passport. He is free to return to face the charges, or to apply for asylum, or to stay put, but why should the US grant him passport indulgence that allows him to continue his evasion of legal proceedings against him? What a bizarre statement.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's so astounding that he undertook all he did ignorant of the very things he's complaining about.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)"unilaterally revoked..."
So, let me get this straight...the State Department revoked the passport of somebody charged with a fedeal felony known to be traveling abroad? Get outta here! They can do that?
Astonishing.
(Sarcasm tag not needed...)
lamp_shade
(14,836 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)You know who's afraid?
People who feel an overwhelming need to cultivate ignore lists.
There are some whack opinions here, in my view, but I ignore no one.
But some people cannot bear to lay eyes on what I post.
THAT is fear.
What do you think people who doubt Snowden's motives are afraid of? He exposed NOTHING that wasn't in existence a week, a month, a year before he decided to steal documents and hightail it to Hong Kong.
The only people I see expressing fear are those who find it "chilling" that some people here can possibly disagree with the world according to Snowden - based NOT on fact, but the positing of a possibility.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)
Also you might want to ask 26 sitting United States Senators.
Oh and forgt, ask the President of the AP to fill you in over that chilling effect.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)whose side are you on?
Can we spy on those bastards?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)including:
1) He's whining about his passport being revoked? LOL!
2) Did he issue it before he applied to Russia for asylum. If so, is he snubbing Putin?
3) Greenwald tweeted that it's not up to Snowden:NOTE: Snowden's leak is basically done. It's newspapers - not Snowden - deciding what gets disclosed and in what sequence.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/351730381478821888
Then there is this quote from a letter to Ecuadorian President Correa:
Update 5:52 p.m.: Reuters has now added quotes from Snowden's letter to President Rafael Correa of Ecuador.
"No matter how many more days my life contains, I remain dedicated to the fight for justice in this unequal world. If any of those days ahead realize a contribution to the common good, the world will have the principles of Ecuador to thank," the letter reads, according to Reuters' translation from the original Spanish.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/report-edward-snowden-breaks-silence
Does Snowden realize that the document was unauthorized and it pissed off Correa?
Ecuador cools on Edward Snowden asylum as Assange frustration grows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023119831
Assange stands by Edward Snowden as Ecuador's Correa reprimands consul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134665
Ecuadoran President Correa Gives VP Biden An Earful
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023130093
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)@#$% you pal.
The Obama administration isn't afraid of me. They're my pals. I get more emails from them than from my family.
Snowden's prose and tenor has improved tremendously since his 'TheTrueHOOHA' days.
Hmmmmm, I wonder whose mommy wrote this for him.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)At this point he sounds like a fool.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)HipChick
(25,485 posts)I don't believe he wrote this himself...sounds like non-American English..He didn't write it...people are so easily fooled.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)<snip>
"On the same day Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his nation would not hand over NSA leaker Edward Snowden, Snowden, who remains ensconced in Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport, has allegedly released a statement of his ownbut not everybody is buying it.
A brief communiquéput out via Wikileaks, of courseattacks the Obama administration for its persistent attempts to get Snowden back in the U.S. and charge him with espionage. The name signed to the missive is "Edward Joseph Snowden," but skeptics on Twitter immediately began questioning the message's veracity.
Farhad Manjoo ✔ @fmanjoo
Did Edward Snowden really write this? No American would use plural verbs for America -- the United States "have been" http://fm4.fm/17PyVGy
Olga Khazan @olgakhazan
@fmanjoo Yeah ... also, what American writes dates as "1st July 2013"?
6:18 PM - 1 Jul 2013
15 RETWEETS 6 FAVORITES ReplyRetweet
http://gawker.com/did-edward-snowden-really-write-this-wikileaks-statemen-639789021
treestar
(82,383 posts)that lawyer, Harrison? Maybe that influence - is she British?
HipChick
(25,485 posts)but I'm British, and with him being 'technical' it would odd for him to accept the date time format so quickly..
treestar
(82,383 posts)and get it "right."
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)gulliver
(13,186 posts)He wants his personality back.
railsback
(1,881 posts)if that was him even writing it.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)railsback
(1,881 posts)malaise
(269,049 posts)They are stretching big time
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Collective nouns usually take a plural verb in British English ("Manchester United are expected to do well against Arsenal", as an example). Australian rules for collective nouns seem to be kind of...fuzzy.
Although as to the date format, it's "1 July", not "1st July". This date format is standard for military correspondence and for correspondence within national security agencies (see for instance the examples below).
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
randome
(34,845 posts)"...if it weren't for those pesky laws!'
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]