Nobody is going to change their mind about Snowden.

[kentuck]

You either believe the government has trespassed on your privacy rights or you do not believe.

It is a big deal to some people and to some, it is no big deal at all.

Those are the parameters for whether you support Edward Snowden or you think he is a traitor.

Nobody is changing their mind.

You are what you are.

[Tx4obama]

1. A person can believe in privacy rights and at the same time think that Snowden is a criminal...

... a criminal that went about what he did in the wrong way and that he should be arrested and put on trial.

[CakeGrrl]

2. This. The demand to think unilaterally is weird.

As if people cannot hold the two concepts you point out at the same time.

It appears that the problem is that some people CANNOT do this, and can only rail at and insult those who can.

[Kurovski]

35. Of course the remedy, as you point out here...

is to likewise insult those who "cannot".

The concept of a whistle-blower also seems to be a weird-ish one to you. All government workers take an oath, and must break it in order to even be a whistle-blower.

[KittyWampus]

51. leaking information to foreign countries who aren't our allies at imopportune moments is not "whistl

whistle-blowing. Snowden went far and beyond whistleblowing.

[HiPointDem]

64. when george bush is prosecuted for killing thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands

of iraqis over a LIE, you can tell me about how bad snowden is.

not to mention all the 'secrets' given to the chinese by the corporations who set up a cheap labor manufacturing platform in china.

if they're our 'enemy' why do they have most favored nation status, hmm?

[vdogg]

76. It is a fact of life

That some people get away crime. Hell, some people get away with murder. That doesn't mean we just stop prosecuting other crimes until the one that got away is caught and convicted. That's just ridiculous.

[HiPointDem]

98. oh go tell the marines

[qazplm]

101. well goodness

I can think of a lot of crimes much, much worse than a couple I could commit right now, so I must be ok to commit them in your book then?

The point being made is there was a path to get to "hero" status for Snowden that involved him only giving out the stuff where the NSA was spying against Americans. Instead, he's done a lot, lot more. He doesn't get to be a hero in my book because he did one good thing followed by several bad things.

[HiPointDem]

104. that the US goes after a guy who reveals information that could put the criminal george bush

& other similar criminals in a bad light while refusing to lay any sanctions *whatsoever* on the same criminals is a completely different situation than your hypothetical.

[CakeGrrl]

57. A whistle-blower exposes ILLEGAL activity

I see no proof.

And that's borne out by the fact that the GOP and the MSM would be all over any illegal activity that could be linked to this administration.

As far as I can see from what's occurred, he STOLE information from his employer, took it to China and Russia, and TOLD the Chinese that's why he took the job.

As for whistle blowing, bunk. Where is the proof that he uncovered anything ILLEGAL? Telling the public that there MIGHT be some bad activity going on does not cut it.

[Kurovski]

58. And a glibbety-globbety-gloob to you as well.

Happy fort 'a July!

[CakeGrrl]

74. And to you as well!

Apparently asking for evidence of illegality in Snowden's ironically stolen loot is a touchy subject.

'Nuff said.

[kentuck]

93. How do you know it was legal?

I thought it was secret?

[UTUSN]

88. "demand to think unilaterally" - yip, plus the name-calling ("authoritarians") - plus

For starters, the so-called transparency/whistle-blowing vs. privacy is not the issue for me. It's totally personal about SNOWDEN/GREENWALD. They should be named "Denmark" because there's something rotten in them, their methods and motives.

As for what their revelations, I didn't need to know details to have my assumptions confirmed that my data is out there, just from the daily annoying and scary features of Caller ID, computer cookies tracking, store cashiers demanding phone & zip code numbers, who-knows-what magnetic strips on swiping machines, and cameras all over town and inside buildings.

Just a couple of weeks before the SNOWDEN story broke, I asked here at "Ask the Administrators" about my periodic unease that all our personal revelations at this website were out there forever for some geek to trace back.

Not even the "demand to think unilaterally" is new here, or the flaming and name-calling and bullying and the apparently non-conscious anti-democratic rhetoric: That disagreement, opposing opinions, freedom of thought and speech and association are not to be tolerated and are to be shut down in the name of Authoritarianism from the Left Side.

Those name-calling "authoritarians" are being it themselves --- and to make this point I am dragging myself into their same name-calling. Forever here, the CHAVISTAS in LBN and a couple of other factions within our Democratic coalition have been lashing out with the same techniques of flaming and bullying. Only the names of the protagonists in the news have changed.

My bottom line: SNOWDEN and GREENWALD are weak reeds for my own idealism.

*********QUOTE********

http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[font size=5]"Frequently Told Lies (FTLs)[/font]

by Glenn GREENWALD

.... I'm a right-wing libertarian
Ever since I began writing about politics back in 2005, people have tried to apply pretty much every political [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]label[/FONT] to me. It’s almost always [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a shorthand method to discredit someone without having to engage the substance[/FONT] of their arguments. It’s the classic [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]ad hominem[/FONT] fallacy: you don’t need to listen to or deal with his arguments because he’s an X. ...."

**********UNQUOTE**********

[UTUSN]

92. My ATA question of Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:22 AM

I just Googled myself

And I always knew that our posts are out there for all the internet to see, but, thinking again as I frequently do about some of my more, uh erratic, posts particularly in the Lounge, the often shunted aside embarrassment stayed sharper and longer than usual this time.

I don’t mind my political opinions being out there and in fact wish that my barbs against Shrub and all wingnuts would hit the widest mark possible (despite their sinking like stones at home in DU), but there might be some local people who actually know me who would take delight at my most ridiculous side, if they hit on the Google key to me. Besides the flakey stuff, we feel like we’re with intimate friends at DU and disclose some intimate things here.

1- I assume that all of our posts are out there forever without any Deletion possible. Like, even if we asked for some kind of super-Closure of account that would wipe us completely off the website, the previous thousands of posts would still be out there?

2- The frivolous thought that I might Google myself, then open every single Result and DU-Delete each one, even passed through my mind, but even my DU post count would be impossible, not to mention that Google says there are some 7 million results.

3- If I just stopped posting, the Googles would still be there, but might recede in time? No, never?

The consolations/rationalizations I tell myself are: If some reasonable person read every single one of my posts, they would have to conclude that I’m not such a bad dude. The spiteful people will stay that way with or without further bolstering of their spite from my flakey posts.

Any assessment of the realistic feasibility of 1/2/3 (above) or other remedies will be appreciated. Oh, heck, I just thought about how there are other Search things besides Google and don’t even understand whether they are all linked or things to themselves!1


*********THE REPLY:

You can self-delete any message you posted since mid-December 2011, when we moved into DU3
But you have to do it one-by-one. There is no super mass-delete function.

We will sometimes delete old posts from DU2 at the request of the person who posted them, but only if there is a compelling reason -- for example, if a post reveals the name or other specific personal information about the person who posted it.

This raises an important point: Avoiding disclosure of personal information on Democratic Underground should address most problems about what you post here. If people cannot connect a real-life human being with a username here, then what you post here should not be a concern.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. Agreed. They are not mutually exclusive.

Nuanced thinking is usually preferable to absolutes.

[Chan790]

11. Yup. n/t

[dkf]

17. Alexander and Clapper should be punished first for lying to the people.

[HardTimes99]

18. Clapper "apologized." These days, that earns the 1% a pass when it comes to perjury or

"misleading Congress". Any of the rest of us would be looking at hard time for it, though.

[nineteen50]

59. a jury can find guilt but dismiss because they believe the

law is wrong.

[MrMickeysMom]

70. A person could think Snowden is a criminal...

...without evidence that he is, or what he did as an individual was criminal.

[Tx4obama]

71. Snowden already publicly stated he committed crimes. So, in my book case closed on that issue :)

Happy 4th

[MrMickeysMom]

72. Well, let's hear it for open mindedness...

I happen to think civil disobedience can be the only course of fighting a police state in this instance, but others, too.

In fact, we have many to thank who came before us for this freedom, which is a large part of today...

Happy 4th of July to you, too!

[vdogg]

78. Those that came before us

Also stood their ground and went to jail. You didn't see MLK hopping from country to country, attempting to damage the U.S. in his travels. You didn't see him cozying up to the Russians or the Chinese. He actually loved his country, he just thought it could be better.

[MrMickeysMom]

100. "Also stood their ground and went to jail..."

... Hmmm... this calls for a history lesson: The signers of the Declaration of Independence felt that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" called for more than a little radicalism. Their overseers, the monarchies of Europe and empires of the East apparently did not see eye to eye that "man was created equal" because there were serfs and nobles. Happiness just so happened to be an accident in the middle of an arduous daily life. The defiance of these new "Americans" are spelled out beginning in the first two paragraphs - "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

vdogg, if you can't see that we have the same problems of this nation in our "overseers" who since 2001 have pushed an unequal agenda against all men and women who are "created equal", then open your eyes a little further. The view you choose to adapt to, which makes one American stand up for these unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is to say this person is "cozying up to the Russians or the Chinese", but that is not self evident... it's a talking point that you think you can push with me.

I actually join with those who are willing to act as the radicals who signed the Declaration of Independence in loving this country. In my view, this actually goes beyond reciting the bunk you just wrote.

Welcome to DU "real conversation", vdogg and Happy 4th of July!

[vdogg]

102. Not a talking point

Snowden leaks cloud US plan to curb Chinese hacking
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-01/snowden-s-leaks-cloud-u-s-plan-to-curb-chinese-hacking.html

NSA targeted Medvedev in London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medvedev-g20-summit

Leaking info to the Chinese and Russians is most certainly cozying up to them. And believe me, I am being quite nice with the words I choose to describe his actions. I fail to see the honor or patriotism in these actions. I fail to see how releasing this information to foreign states does anything to curtail the surveillance state here at home. You cannot separate the man from his actions. The leaking of the domestic spying program was good, but he's done a whole lot of bad since them. In your condescending history lesson, you failed to point out where "those that came before us" released information to our enemies out of spite or to make a point. "Those that came before us" would be astounded by Snowden's behavior.

[MrMickeysMom]

106. How do you know how "those that came before us" would feel about what has taken place?

You assume an awful lot in making that claim...Talk about being condescending...

Paraphrase it however you read history, it's the same oppression we face today. Summarizing the moves of this person is something I've been reading about, just as you seem to be (at least I hope you've read well). Your interpretation is that it amounts to cozying up and defying anything more than allegiance to a principle. I differ in what this allegiance to basics rights has become, something he has been willing to expose for quite a price. We are being watched, policed, and held unequal to privatized military and international corporations. I'm not sure those that came before us would be calling our attention to the same thing Snowden and others have tried to.

[Hekate]

73. I'm one of those people who believes in privacy rights and also thinks Snowden committed crimes

Especially since he admitted to them, so there's no dispute there.

What is in dispute is Snowden's motives.

Interesting that, unlike Daniel Ellsberg, Snowden ran. Often, people who commit a crime with a political aim in mind WANT their public trial, because they not only want to have their say, they also count on more information coming out during the trial.

Hekate

[Skidmore]

79. This x2. Your post encapsulates the issue related to

Snowden for me. And I would add that you can also understand that operating under the law doesn't mean that you agree with law. The law needs to be revisited and either repealed or revised. Having questions or noting the nuances is not a bad thi g.

[MH1]

97. Pretty much covers my opinion as well.

I also read and watch enough spy stories, and know enough about IT, to suspect that pretty much anything is possible, and anything that is possible is being used by the NSA/CIA/FBI (in that order of presumed competence). So nothing Snowden has revealed so far as shocked me.

I would greatly appreciate if our country was kinder to privacy rights. But frankly, there are things going on that are more immediately hurtful to more people, and my opinion is that the way Snowden has revealed things as increased the probability of THOSE issues getting WORSE rather than better. So, besides the fact that his act is pretty much the textbook definition of treason and no one with two brain cells to rub together should expect any government to ignore that fact, I really don't care much for him as a human being.

[Progressive dog]

103. Of course they can, I do,

but I also do not take Ed Snowden's claims as true without proof. It seems obvious that some of his claims are exaggerations.

[flamingdem]

105. +1

[randome]

3. I think some minds can be changed once Snowden is in custody.

Provided that ever occurs. Some aspects will become more clear.

[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]

[CakeGrrl]

5. Apparently, some think that he should get a pass for handing information to China and Russia.

And don't put the question out there. The dodge/deflection is "Well, Obama should go after Wall Street!"

And I'll ask again: Where is the proof that Snowden uncovered illegal surveillance?

[Liberal Veteran]

6. Well, Obama should be putting the Bush criminals on trial!

[randome]

9. We would all like to see that happen.

But what crime would you charge them with? Lying?

[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]

[HardTimes99]

19. Bush: Fraud against the American people. Cheney: Torture and

Crimes Against Humanity.

jeesh!

[randome]

25. Those are vague labels. Ones I agree with completely.

But in a court of law, they would not last ten minutes. Fraud by a President? "Hey, we misinterpreted the intelligence!"

Torture? "Didn't that Libby guy go to prison for that?"

It just wouldn't fly. They hoodwinked us all and got away with it. That's the crime but there is no punishment on the books for that.

[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]

[HardTimes99]

29. On the contrary, both fraud and torture are specific statutes chargeable in the

federal code. (Not sure about 'Crimes against Humanity'.)

Read Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder for more information on how such a case can be brought in any U.S. jurisdiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder\

The entire Bush Junta have already been found guilty in absentia in a trial in Malaysia:

In the first trial of its kind ever, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William Haynes, Jay Bybee, and John Yoo were convicted in Malaysia, for torture and inhumane degrading treatment of people.

This is no small or meaningless trial- this is a very serious and historical guilty verdict, like a 21st century Nuremberg trial, and only the first of many trials to come. The names of all these guilty, high ranking officials are even going to be entered into the “Commission’s Register of War Criminals ” for public record.

This trial was the work of Malaysia’s ex Prime Minister Mahuthir Mohamad.

http://intellihub.com/2013/07/02/bush-administration-officially-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-lawyer-says-we-will-get-bush/

[treestar]

56. they never will tell us what the statutes are

because it's much easier to demand that Bush be prosecuted for "war crimes." They really think indictments can read like "Defendant is charged with war crimes." The concept of the US Code is beyond them. They don't know it exists. They really think the President just "runs the country" with rubber stamps by Congress, over which he should be in control as "leaders lead."

[randome]

75. I know. It's sometimes hard to get my mind around a response to that.

In a just world, Bush, Jr. would never have been able to invade Iraq let alone get away with it.

We have never lived in a just world.

[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]

[KharmaTrain]

86. In A Just World...

...Al Gore would have been President and the Iraq fiasco would have never happened.

As you say, we don't live in a just world...

Those who should have taken up the cause of prosecuting the dubya cabal is the International Court in the Hague...our system (especially the legislative) is unable to do a proper investigation as it would show their own complicity in approving the war crimes. That said, I think some of us can differentiate the crimes of a Snowden...that can and should be investigated and tried vs. the rhetoric and, sadly, futile efforts to link this case with the bush war crimes.

Cheers...

[RC]

28. How about War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

Pack them up and send GWbu$h, Richard Bruce Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for their crimes at the Hague.
Follow that up by other deserving war criminals in the bu$h and Obama Administration.

[CakeGrrl]

12. Nice concept, but...what has that to do with Snowden's data theft and handoff to foreign countries?

Again, the bizarre demand that some people are making that you agree he run free or you are an authoritarian freedom-hater is very similar to the intractable, closed minds on you see in Freeperville. There is no big tent. 'You're either with us or against us' is the prevailing attitude, which is HIGHLY ironic for those who try to paint Obama as GW Bush II or worse.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. Not a thing. It was just another of the stock deflection strategies.

I have a nasty sardonic tendency at times that doesn't always translate well to the forum.

In short, I agree with you.

[CakeGrrl]

15. No prob. Kind of crazy that it's getting hard to tell

I wonder what the mood will be when - and I'll say when - Snowden faces a US trial, no James Bond spy stealth assassination or anything.

He just goes to jail for breaking the laws he broke.

What a letdown that might be.

[randome]

7. Snowden said he "saw things!" He said stuff!

What more do you need to know?

[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]

[bluestate10]

8. At this point Snowden would serve his supporters by returning to the USA and fighting it

out in court. Snowden would be well lawyered in that fight. I think that Snowden is a coward and a traitor, I don't see him coming back to fight it out over principle.

[CakeGrrl]

13. Logically, yes. But paranoia prevails here now.

You see, President Obama has morphed in to the evillest despot without regard to the rule of law, so poor poor Snowden would not live to see a fair trial.

The groupthink is strong.

[HardTimes99]

21. Snowden is the kind of coward you could only hope to be - nt

[countmyvote4real]

50. +1

[RC]

32. And be treated like Bradly Manning?

Ed Snowden probably knows better than to turn himself in. This country has a long history of not treating people very well.

[stevenleser]

40. Manning is military. Snowden is not subject to the UCMJ. nt

[RC]

41. And you point is?

None of the prisoners at Gitmo are military either, so what's your point? Mine is the rule of law is not followed very well by our government.

[stevenleser]

47. If you dont understand the difference between the Military and Civilian Justice systems you have a

lot of reading to do.

The only Americans at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan while they were fighting against us. Snowden wouldn't be sent there. He would be subject to the civilian criminal justice system.

[RC]

85. Oh, I understand the difference all right. Do you?

Our government uses the difference between the two systems as a weapon.
We invaded their (Afghanistan) country. They were/are civilians, fighting invaders (US) in their country. What is so hard to get here? We invaded them!
If we were not in their country, they could do us no harm. Besides, what did they have to do with our reason for we being in their country in the first place? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian, not an Iraqi, nor an Afghanistan. Was he military? Not hardly. Why didn't we lay waste to Saudi Arabia, instead of invading the paper tiger, Iraq and after that, a country so stone aged they barely had a government? And then, once we had bin Laden trapped in Tora Bora, we let him escape! Our military on the scene, were told to stand down. They watched the helicopters come in, pick up bin Laden and his lieutenants and and fly back out, unimpeded. If we had caught him, we would have lost our excuse for war there. Couldn't be having any of that, now could we?

Picture this: This country, The U.S., gets invaded. You, as a civilian fight back, defending your country against this foreign invader. You get captured and transported to their country. Should you be tried in their military courts, because they said you broke their laws? You wore no uniform. All you did was try to defend your own neighborhood from this outsider. So now you are an enemy combatant, for daring to fight an invader that was killing your follow country men?
Or do you think we should just let them come in and take over?

To truly understand a situation, you must see and understand it from the other perspective. You don't have to agree, just understand where they are coming from.

[stevenleser]

87. I'm former Air Force. I understand the difference quite well. You apparently don't. nt

[RC]

89. I am former Navy. So what?

[stevenleser]

90. Unlike you apparently, I did not sleep through the briefings on military justice. nt

[RC]

91. That is all you got from my post #85?

Not surprising you don't want to touch anything else there. Reality and facts and all that, that get in the way of your world view.

[treestar]

52. Amazing how many times that has to be pointed out

and they still refuse to acknowledge it.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Just because a driver thinks it is ok to drive 100 mph and the speed limit is 60 does not mean the

driver will not be charged with speeding. Such as in the case of an employee stealing from the employer is still a thief even though the employee thinks it is ok for employee to do so. Snowden has been charged with espionage as set forth in the Code of Ethics he was employed under. I know this does not make much sense to those who thinks it is great Snowden has stolen information and given information to others of the operation in the NSA but it does not stop the charge of espionage.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

20. Should it ever be a crime to report wrong doing?

And even if it is, that is still quite a leap to conflate releasing information to the people, who own it, with espionage, as traditionally, and under our laws is usually recognized as a whistleblower.

Now you may not see him as a whistleblower but is it not unreasonable to accept that others legitimately do.

[Thinkingabout]

26. In the case of Snowden, employees of NSA are exempt from protection of the Whistleblower Act

and therefore is not protected. He was not supposed to release information of the operations he was involved in the NSA. Perhaps you have never been employed in a position where you was informed if you released information about your employment it would result in espionage charges but there are many where this happens. Even the communications companies from which the phone call records are not supposed to release the information to news medias or even your next door neighbor. The information was released to the NRA from a warrant. Would you like for a communications company employee to release your information to anyone they choose?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

33. Actually, he was employed by a private contractor

Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

But that law is another example of what the problem is, only some can enjoy the protection of whistleblower laws while others can not.

But even if he is guilty of violating the company's rules, that still does not make him guilty of espionage, as his acts are that of a classic whistleblower, and not someone who looked to personally gain, and/or harm the American people, in secret, by revealing our secrets to covert agents of a foreign power. The facts in this case are that he went to the press, and impressed upon them to be discriminating in what they released, in order to only release what was genuinely in the public interest. Which I believe, as do many others, make him a whistleblower, and not a spy committing espionage against our country,

[Thinkingabout]

34. Again I ask if you would be okay if a communications company released your phone call records to

your neighbors?

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

62. Bad analogy as he did nothing like that but how would you feel if your business partner released ALL

YOUR personal records to the government, WITHOUT your knowledge, let alone your permission, under the pretense that you MAY be a terrorist, or some other BAD-ACTOR?

[Thinkingabout]

81. Now you are getting the picture, exactly what Snowden has done, and was not released to the

Government but to foreign media sources and perhaps other governments. He did this without the permission of the NSA, in fact was under a Code of Ethics which he was not supposed to give information about the operation and information collected and if he did it would result with a charge of espionage.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

83. your going in circles

and being deliberately obtuse, cya.

[Thinkingabout]

84. Like a dog chasing its tail, you finally caught yours. enjoy reality.

[brush]

42. Didn't this guy take an oath?

Maybe that's why he ran. King, Ellsberg, Mandela, Ghandi . . . none of them ran. They stayed and faced the music with their principles intact.

If he was so courageous he'd still be here. And the greatest lawyers in the land would be lining up to defend him.

He's no hero.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

65. Yes, and so did our leaders, to protect and defend our rights and liberties. So is it a crime

to reveal a crime?

I would argue that only in a totalitarian regime would that be considered a valid crime.

He was forced to seek sanctuary in another country because of our country's very poor recent past behavior towards whistleblowers, which imo, reflects much more poorly on the government, than the whistleblower.

Also, I never refer to him as a hero, but I do think of him, and our other whistle blowers as Patriots.

[brush]

67. Sounds more like a spy to me

What the hell is he doing turning over classified information to the Chinese and Russians?

That's way more than whistle blowing.

And he wasn't forced to seek sanctuary. Patriots don't abandon their country.

I'd have all kind of respect for this guy if he had shown courage to stay and fight for what he believed but he didn't. Some patriot.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

68. Because he released TOP SECRET docs to the press - Whistleblower

[brush]

96. Should've stayed and "owned" what he did. nt

[Tx4obama]

43. You left out the part about Snowden STEALING the classified goverment documents and equipment.

'Reporting' something is a much different issue than being a thief and STEALING stuff

[treestar]

54. that is a conclusion you jumped to

you just assume every leaker is "reporting wrong doing."

[countmyvote4real]

61. As long as some are reaching for metaphors to justify an absolute or ambiguous position…

Fire up the flamethrowers.

Let’s presume that Snowden’s knowledge that our government is secretly invading our privacy on a mass scale is a fetus that “he” can no longer or cannot carry. Oath. Shmoath. I think he has explained and demonstrated the burden of his decision to “abort” and reveal this knowledge to the world. (I know I’m convoluting the metaphor because an abortion is not something one wants to share with the world. And Roe v. Wade was essentially a decision based on privacy.) But the laws protecting a woman’s privacy, they are a changing state by state. And not in a good way IMO.

So, if you will indulge my imperfect metaphor a bit more. We don’t know if the extent of this fetus revelation is five, ten, twenty plus weeks or a full-blown baby of disclosure revealing the passcodes to our government’s nuclear football. That’s irrelevant when our government has relinquished surveillance of our privacy to third party corporations at the cost of trillions of our tax paying dollars and priceless detriment to the transparency of our democracy.

And if he had to go to the back alleys of China, Russia, Ecuador, etc. he went where he could go because he will never be safe here in the formerly good ole USA. Just ask Bradley Manning.

If it’s not apparent for the slow thinkers, I’m equating the self-righteous attitudes of these out-breaking restricting and dangerous abortion policies with those that will condemn Snowden for treason (not possible under our Constitution since there has not been a declaration of war since WW2).

I’m a proud DU veteran and don’t post that much, but in the words of Grannie from TBH, “Jeb, they riled me.”

Bring it on Bitches.

Actually just talk amongst yourselves. Food for thought. I’m going to the beach.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

16. I disagree, not everyone has made up their minds

Nor is everyone completely entrenched in their views that they may never change their minds after listening to informed even passionate debate on the issues.

That is why it is critical that speech and debate never be squelched or restricted especially with time limits.

[CakeGrrl]

22. On this I agree.

Let's hope those who would like to see people removed from this site after they are ignored by a certain number of people do not get their way in terms of stifling dissent and debate in favor of only allowing the 'desirables'.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

30. Ignoring is a feature here

Though I don't personally take advantage of it as I would rather engage the disinformation than ignore it as I strongly believe that was a contributing factor in leading us into this totalitarian state.

This is America and we must all excersize our 1st amendment rights now more than ever.

[bluestate10]

53. Ignoring those that disagree is a path that the weak willed take. Anyone that has real

principles will fight for them and take on any comers.

[emulatorloo]

55. Good post. And I do not believe DU'ers thoughts are as binary OP makes them out to be

[HardTimes99]

23. Four words: "Tip of the iceberg" - nt

[Renew Deal]

31. 1 number and 3 words: indicted within 24 hours

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

37. Excellent point

[JaneyVee]

24. I'm still on the fence and see both sides of the debate.

Not on the fence about whether he is a traitor or not, on the fence about the NSA's actions in general.

[Renew Deal]

27. I disagree

There are a lot of people that aren't following this story or don't understand it. There's a lot of mixed opinion out there too. There are people that think the hacking/spying is wrong and so is what Snowden did.

[nevergiveup]

36. I am on the fence

I am totally ambivalent in my feelings about Snowden. There is something about Snowden that I find creepy and the fact he ran off to Hong Kong is very unsettling but at the same time I am glad his actions has resulted in at least some Americans refocusing on our privacy rights. Personally I think anyone would have to be living under a rock not to know that the government has been trespassing on our privacy rights. It has always been to some degree but after 9/11 our intelligence community became obsessed with it. I think it is very important we are talking about it again.

[Lil Missy]

38. Never try to teach a pig to sing

It doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

[Hydra]

39. I haven't made my mind up

But the fact that he leaked documents needed by the ACLU and others to challenge the spying that's going on is huge.

Nobody is a complete saint or sinner. Einstein probably wasn't feeling especially heroic when the bomb that he helped build was used to vaporize civilians.

[brush]

44. Don't think Einstein helped build the bomb

His equation E=MC2 was the theory behind the science of it but he was a pacifist and not part of the Manhattan project that developed and built the bomb.

[Union Scribe]

46. No, but he encouraged Roosevelt

to pursue the atomic bomb so the allies would have it first. He later regretted doing so.

[Hydra]

48. I did a little digging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter

And no he didn't work on it directly, but I think he rightly accepts the blame for getting the ball rolling.

Road to hell and best intentions...

[vdogg]

80. If he hadn't done what he did

The Germans would've had the bomb first. While the consequences of building the bomb were horrific, in the end he did the right thing.

[Hydra]

99. Hard to say

And hard to judge at the time. They disrupted the German facilities working on the bomb(we couldn't know if that could be done), but we wound up not needing it and used to make a political statement instead.

I'm sure the bomb was inevitable...but it has been one of the most morally and physically toxic inventions we've ever made.

[MrModerate]

45. People who think as rigidly as you do, perhaps . . .

For the rest of us, there may still be hope.

It's quite possible to hold the following ideas in one's head simultaneously, without cranial detonation:

1) Snowden is a hero
2) Snowden is a criminal
3) The NSA program is dangerous, and wrong, and probably ineffective
4) Government officials (across several administrations) had really good reasons for developing it, and developing it the way they did

Eventually, I expect the whole world will end up in the headspace I have described above.

[Hydra]

49. I disagree with 4

But I'm glad someone else can see things from multiple angles at once and will say so.

I really don't think this spying on Americans thing came from a good root- I'm pretty sure it came from the people in power getting too comfortable and greedy, and worrying about people who think about changing the system they are profiting from.

[HardTimes99]

69. #4 really reminds me of the rationales successive administrations deployed to justify

our involvement in southeast Asia (Vietnam) from 1954 forward. Pretty soon, the thing just assumed this self-regenerating momentum all its own -- the final reason given for why we couldn't leave Vietnam, IIRC, was that we would lose credibility with our allies were we to leave. I'm reminded of that now, as if rolling back the surveillance Leviathan will somehow mean that we've been defeated by the terrorists or some such malarkey.

Just like there's a law of inertia in Newtonian physics, there should probably be an analogue in politics. To wit, policies once set in motion tend to stay in motion.

[Incitatus]

60. I think there would be a lot less Snowden haters here if McCain/Palin were in office. nt

[flamingdem]

63. Wait, wait, I changed my mind!

Just kiddin'

[Savannahmann]

66. It would be difficult to care significantly less about Snowden

The story isn't the messengers, no matter how hard the apologists try and derail the narrative. The story is the spying.

That said. I think the actions in Europe regarding Morales were despicable. I think the fact that Snowden is still lose is somewhat humorous. I don't think he should spend life in prison, but I rarely think anyone should.

Snowden could be a serial masturbater, and I wouldn't care, the story is the spying by the USG on us all. Snowden could be a part of the 3% movement, and I wouldn't care. The story is the spying.

I could keep this up all might, and it wouldn't matter. The story is the spying.

Any questions?

[YeahSureRight]

77. You are what you are - Very True

[backscatter712]

82. Certain "people" aren't paid to be persuadable.

I use the term "people" loosely - we've got entire warehouses of socks working here.

They're paid to spam their talking points over and over and over, and to shout down dissent.

You think China's the only country with a Fifty Cent Party?

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. And some of us get it, not about Snowden

The problem is e security state...it could be Jefferson himself, the Tories here would ask for his head and distract, distract, from the king.

Different century, same fracking attitude.

[MineralMan]

95. It's hardly that simple.

You can believe that the government has trespassed on your privacy rights and also believe that Snowden was wrong to do what he did and broke laws that were designed to protect classified information.

You can disbelieve that the government has actually trespassed on your privacy rights and support leaks of classified information by individuals who you believe are legitimate whistleblowers.

You can also believe that Edward Snowden broke a law and did not use existing pathways to disclose classified information but not believe that he is a "traitor."

I believe, or actually know, that the government has the capability to trespass on my privacy rights. It has had that capability for a long time, and that information has been publicly disclosed a number of times. I also believe that it is impractical in the extreme to actually do that unless there is a compelling reason to do so. So, I'm not concerned that my particular privacy has been violated. Yours either, frankly.

Having been in a similar situation to Snowden and Manning, and disagreeing with some of the things that were being done by organizations I worked for when in the military, I decided not to work for those organizations once my USAF enlistment was over. I had agreed not to disclose classified information and had been briefed on the penalties for doing so. I chose not to. Frankly, the work I did had nothing to do with anything I disagreed with, but I knew of other stuff that did. Hence my decision to separate from the organization, despite a very attractive job offer.

To have accessed and revealed information about other activities would have been very difficult, except in general terms, and I chose not to do that. Indeed, I wasn't even sure of the extent or actual illegality of such activities. I chose to bail.

Others have made other choices. Each had agreed not to release classified information and understood the penalties for doing so. I have an enormous amount of respect for civil disobedience, but also believe that civil disobedience must include the willingness to stand behind what you do and use any prosecution as a platform for your position as far as is possible. Daniel Ellsberg is an excellent example of that, as are many others. Even PFC Manning is standing by his actions and is now on trial. That is what people who exercise civil disobedience do, and they have my respect, whether or not I agree with them.