FORMER CIA OFFICER: Edward Snowden Is No Traitor

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-not-a-traitor-2013-7

There are a number of narratives being floated by the usual suspects to attempt to demonstrate that Edward Snowden is a traitor who has betrayed secrets vital to the security of the United States. All the arguments being made are essentially without merit. Snowden has undeniably violated his agreement to protect classified information, which is a crime. But in reality, he has revealed only one actual secret that matters, which is the United States government’s serial violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution through its collection of personal information on millions of innocent American citizens without any probable cause or search warrant.

That makes Snowden a whistleblower, as he is exposing illegal activity on the part of the federal government. The damage he has inflicted is not against U.S. national security but rather on the politicians and senior bureaucrats who ordered, managed, condoned, and concealed the illegal activity.

First and foremost among the accusations is the treason claim being advanced by such legal experts as former Vice President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and Senator Dianne Feinstein. The critics are saying that Snowden has committed treason because he has revealed U.S. intelligence capabilities to groups like al-Qaeda, with which the United States is at war. Treason is, in fact, the only crime that is specifically named and described in the Constitution, in Article III: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Whether Washington is actually at war with al-Qaeda is, of course, debatable since there has been no declaration of war by Congress as required by Article I of the Constitution. Congress has, however, passed legislation, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force, empowering the President to employ all necessary force against al-Qaeda and “associated” groups; this is what Cheney and the others are relying on to establish a state of war.



Read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/edward-snowden-is-no-traitor/#ixzz2ZglskwRX

Read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/edward-snowden-is-no-traitor/#ixzz2ZglbBk99

[Scuba]

1. K&R

[newfie11]

2. K&R

[ProSense]

3. American Conservative? This guy was

Ron Paul's foreign policy advisor in 2008.

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/uncategorized/philip-giraldi/

[xchrom]

4. i knew the messenger would be shot.

the whole point was it came from a conservative -- a libertarian on -- but still a conservative.

[ProSense]

5. Yeah,

I'm not a fan of racists.

[leveymg]

6. What makes you say Phil Giraldi is a "racist"?

Or, is everyone who criticizes the policies of your idols a racist?

[ProSense]

25. Well,

"What makes you say Phil Giraldi is a "racist"?"

....he supports a racist.

Racists love his anti-semitism.

He's a conspiracy theorists who believes the Israelis were involved in 9/11 and the U.S. government shot down a passenger airline.

His "illegal immigration" theories are interesting.

<...>

But the elites struck back by calling their opponents ignorant "bigots" and "racists" and it appeared for a while that they would triumph in spite of the popular dissent. Republican politicians like illegal immigration because it provides the ultimate in a flexible labor force at below market wage levels. Democrats like the thought of millions of Hispanics-soon-to-be naturalized voting in lock step for the party of the people. Politicians and think tankers of both parties residing in their enclaves in Washington, D.C. Northwest love work-for-peanuts itinerant laborers that wander the area doing odd jobs and the ask-no-questions house cleaners and babysitters that their status entitles them to have. Not needing to change diapers, clean house, or cook meals frees one up to do a lot of ruminating on the taxpayer's dime.

<...>

And then there is the issue of security, which most Americans also understand. If you are waging a self-proclaimed global war on terrorism that is costing some hundreds of billions of dollars annually and you are leaving your back door wide open, there is little point in spending the money to deter a terrorist attack. The Bush Administration version of reality that insists that "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," nonsensical when applied to Iraq, could more logically be applied to the Mexican border as keeping terrorists out is far more effective than continuing to make it relatively easy for them to enter with a minimum effort on their part. Law enforcement and intelligence sources note that the same mechanisms that assist illegal immigrants to cross borders are frequently used to distribute drugs and to permit free movement of any number of other miscreants. The same false document factories that supply the illegal immigrant industry also can, and do, supply individuals who have other objectives. A large number of the illegals who are caught crossing the Mexican border, amounting to more than 100,000 in 2005, are described as "other than Mexican" or OTM. Up until recently, they were briefly detained and then released to appear at a later immigration court hearing. More than 85 percent did not show up. Most OTMs are admittedly Latin American, but given the ability to acquire false documents and assume identities, there should be little complacency about the nearly half million non-Mexican illegals believed to be present in the U.S..

The solution to the border security and immigration problem is obvious and is clearly understood everywhere in the United States except, apparently, in Washington, D.C. First, you secure the border absolutely and completely. That there can be an immigration policy that does not start with total control over the national borders is a dangerous illusion. Build a wall if you must. It would cost less than the money being wasted in one month in Iraq. A wall worked for Hadrian's Rome and kept the barbaric Picts out of the Empire for nearly 300 years. Once you do that, it makes it possible to consider in a rational and humane way what should be done about all of the illegals who are already in the United States. Better enforcement of sanctions against employers would reduce the number of jobs available which would in turn mean that many illegal immigrants would voluntarily go home. Others might opt for a path to citizenship that would require them to return home to apply and wait for admittance after paying fines and legalizing their status. Still others might be legalized on humanitarian grounds or for political asylum. Best of all, a return to a status quo ante on our southern border would mean that the United States would finally be forced to address in a serious way the principal responsibility of any government, which is to protect its territory and its citizens. It would also mitigate the international terrorism threat, which is a real and continuing problem that must be taken seriously. Border control would shut down the option that terrorists now have to enter undocumented and unmonitored as part of the wave of millions of illegal immigrants. That alone would be worth the effort.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/border-insecurity-for-sal_b_57419.html

He was adivsor to Ron Paul, who I consider a racist.

Ron Paul's Immigration Conspiracy Theory
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/ron-pauls-immigration-conspiracy

Is there any reason for the Eddie Murphy photo?

Separately, I did notice this bit of hypocrisy in the bio at the previous link:

As a counter-terrorism expert, he has assisted multinational corporations in the upgrade of their security at overseas sites to help them comply with the Patriot Act. He was one of the first American civilians to travel to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, was brought in for consultation by the Port Authority of the City of New York in its planning, has assisted the United Nations security organization, and has helped develop a security training program for the United States Merchant Marine.

So this "counter-terrorism" stuff is only useful in making money off "multinational corporations"?

I can comment on the OP article to say this claim is bullshit:

That makes Snowden a whistleblower, as he is exposing illegal activity on the part of the federal government. The damage he has inflicted is not against U.S. national security but rather on the politicians and senior bureaucrats who ordered, managed, condoned, and concealed the illegal activity.

Greenwald and Snowden have revealed no such thing. Repeating that bullshit claims doesn't make it so. Snowden is not a whistleblower.

[Mojorabbit]

48. Nobody here gives a shit about Ron Paul. nt

[Enthusiast]

58. True.

Our support of Snowden and outrage over the NSA surveillance is not because we are Ron Paul supporters. The guy is a racist, I can't stand to hear the ignoramus speak.

[karynnj]

13. Consider other things that the Ron Pau people think unconstitutional - Medicare, Social Security etc

Next consider if being a CIA guy makes you a constitutional scholar. Not to mention, the government has not charged him with treason. I suspect that the people who have used the word "traitor" are NOT saying he is guilty of treason - and the definition of the word is not limited to treason. It can mean that he betrayed a trust - and, in fact, he did just that in disclosing classified that he promised he would keep secret.

It is a VERY big leap to say that creating a data base with third party owned billing records of telephone usage is unconstitutional - which is a very common claim here. Yet a bill allowing just that passed both Houses of Congress - in 2007 and again in 2011 or 2012 - and has NOT been declared unconstitutional by a court.

I personally think that the problem here might be just that controls on accessing the data need to be strengthened. That is something that Congress can do. Here, there are at least two things that need control. One is when any part of the government accesses it for their reasons - and it may be that the requirement for a FISA approval is already handling that. The other may be more difficult - controlling the access of people maintaining and building the database. That they are contractors just adds to the problem. (This is not conceptually new - consider the SNL skit of an operator listening in to calls back when the operator connected them. )

As to those questioning the need of the database, what would be better to quickly identify the contacts of someone found to be suspicious? Other than speed, how is this different than being able to subpoena phone records for a suspect from the phone company directly?

[Blanks]

45. This entire discussion seems to be anti-government.

You make a good point: "controls on accessing the data need to be strengthened".

It really should be a discussion about strengthening the Federal Communication Commission to prevent the kind of abuses that everyone is so concerned about. Maybe even a new agency under the FCC.

As it is we have a lot of people crying for reducing the government, which is odd for a site that seems to normally be pro-government.

Many of the ones screaming the high heaven about the NSA, wonder why some of the others point out that some of the players are libertarians or Ron Paul supporters. To me, it should be obvious: they are trying to weaken the government.

Weakening the government may have been Snowden's goal all along - if he has libertarian leanings, it makes sense.

[marions ghost]

26. And that IS the point

--a conservative BUSINESS site--"Business Insider."

This is what people don't want to see but it's worth discussing--the perspective of the business sector. In general they aren't too fond of the surveillance state. What the biz sector wants it usually gets, so this an interesting article. Very relevant to the issue.

[Progressive dog]

7. Just the guy to pimp for an accused criminal

who fled the US to avoid prosecution.

[cantbeserious]

11. Shooting The Messenger Does Not Change The Fact That The 4th Amendment Is Under Attack By The US Government

Last edited Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)

eom

[Berlum]

21. There you have it

[flamingdem]

30. Those are cute

but the flesh kind are not!

[markiv]

27. and Ron Paul is BAD!!!

so cover your ears children, you're not old enough to read things and decide for yourself

[sabrina 1]

33. And??? Paul disagreed with Bush's foreign policies, are you agreeing with Bush now, or

saying that this guy should have been an adviser to Romney who DID agree with Bush's policies?

He's a Conservative, that IS the point, or did you miss it?

And of course the question is once again, since both these people disagreed with Bush's anti-Consitutional policies, which in this Liberal Democrat's opinion is a good thing, what are you trying to say?

I am always thrilled when the Right sees how right Liberals have been all along as we will need more than just Liberals to reverse Bush policies.

How about you? Do you agree now with those policies we all so vehemently opposed while Bush was president?

Your comment says nothing at all about the issues of Bush's policies. But if I'm reading it right, you seem to be supporting them???

[ProSense]

42. Paul is a racist.

"Paul disagreed with Bush's foreign policies, are you agreeing with Bush now, or saying that this guy should have been an adviser to Romney who DID agree with Bush's policies?"

Are you agreeing with Paul now?

Paul is also a hypocrite and a liar: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023205539#post6

"I am always thrilled when the Right sees how right Liberals have been all along as we will need more than just Liberals to reverse Bush policies. "

I'm always fascinated how some people are easily duped by Ron Paul.

[Mojorabbit]

46. You neglected to answer the direct question. nt

[sabrina 1]

57. Didn't answer the question. Moved the goal posts, as expected. The topic was foreign

policy. Almost all republicans are racists as far as I know, some more obvious than others. Obama doesn't seem to mind, he has appointed a whole slew of them to his cabinet. He is good friends with a few totally anti-women Republicans who support ending abortion rights. Can you explain this at all


You're doing it again. You're saying 'it's okay for the President to overlook all the problems we have with Republicans, such as racism, anti-women's rights, illegal wars etc but at the same time, and imo, hypocritically trying to apply different standards to voters.

Here's the thing. The President has now set a standard. We wanted nothing to do with Republicans because we KNOW their views. HE has stated, most loudly with his appointments of Republicans instead of Democrats, that he doesn't care about their views.

So if HE doesn't care, why should we? Politicians are no better or worse than voters. They are just people ask for the job and we give it to them. I see them only as equals and what's good for them is good for the rest of us.

Many Democrats have worked with Ron Paul and his son, Al Franken eg. So I guess he too, like the President, doesn't care if they are racist, anti-women etc so long as they can 'work with them'.

Why are YOU concerned when the President isn't? We have to be pragmatic, isn't that what we are told about all this bi-partisanship? Now that we have agreed, you are upset. All I care about now that the President has led that way, is that WE get the votes WE need on important issues such as our Foreign Policy.

Send your information to the WH about Republicans and their views. Seems they need it more than the rest of us do.

[stillwaiting]

63. You are purely reactionary in your opinions.

Thus, there is not depth or personal thinking to them.

You are simply a puppet. When someone you have deemed unworthy believes something you will automatically not think similarly as a reflexive action.

You are no better than a robot. Your opinions could be written by a computer.

It's pathetic and shows no personal autonomy. You are a puppet. So easily led, and DIVIDED from other people (as intended by the elite to prevent progress on issues that might be important).

For the record: I deem Ron Paul/Rand Paul pretty fucking unworthy, BUT on the rare occasions that I agree with them on something I will stand with them if there is any chance that I can win on an issue that's important to me. When it comes to our civil liberties they can be correct occasionally, and if a coalition of conservative libertarians and liberal/progressive minded individuals can work together to protect our civil liberties, then that is a coalition well worth making.

[ProSense]

64. And

You are no better than a robot. Your opinions could be written by a computer.

It's pathetic and shows no personal autonomy. You are a puppet. So easily led, and DIVIDED from other people (as intended by the elite to prevent progress on issues that might be important).

For the record: I deem Ron Paul/Rand Paul pretty fucking unworthy, BUT on the rare occasions that I agree with them on something I will stand with them if there is any chance that I can win on an issue that's important to me.

...you are no better than an apologist for a racist, hypocrite, liar and his son.

Fuck Ron and Rand Paul.

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'

By Steve Benen

In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) launched a high-profile filibuster on the Senate floor, bringing attention to drone strikes and civil liberties questions that too often go ignored. But as the spectacle faded, a problem emerged -- Paul didn't seem to fully understand the issue he ostensibly cares so much about.

The Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." Attorney General Eric Holders said the "answer to that question is no." For many involved in the debate, the answer was superficial and incomplete -- who gets to define what constitutes "combat"? what about non-weaponized drones? -- but Paul declared victory and walked away satisfied.

Today, the senator went further, saying he's comfortable with drones being used over U.S. soil if the executive branch decides -- without a warrant or oversight -- there's an "imminent threat." Paul told Fox News:

"...I've never argued against any technology being used when you an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it's different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities."

I realize it's difficult to explore complex policy questions in detail during a brief television interview, and perhaps if the Republican senator had more time to think about it, he might explain his position differently. But as of this afternoon, it sounds like Rand Paul is comfortable with the executive branch having the warrantless authority to use weaponized drones to kill people on American soil suspected of robbing a liquor store.

But flying over a hot tub is where he draws the line.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/23/17881782-disappointing-those-who-stand-with-rand

Drones to kill people "suspected of robbing a liquor store."

[stillwaiting]

66. You are quite simply despicable to make such assertions about me.

You would label me as such for agreeing with Ron/Rand Paul ANYTIME, ANYWHERE on ANTHING political.

Your attempts at doing so are surely transparent to most around here.

Your agenda is fully on display.

Again, your thinking has zero depth. It is purely reactionary, and it is intended to keep Americans divided. Always divided. No progress against the status quo. Ever.

P.S. Fuck Ron Paul and Rand Paul. But if they ever agree with me, I will gladly let them support MY positions and beliefs. Rare as that may be.

[ProSense]

68. And you're not "despicable" for your bullshit personal attacks?

If you can't fucking take it, don't fucking dish it out.

I stand by my point.

[stillwaiting]

69. Pointing out the realities of your thinking may feel like a personal attack, but your

thinking has been on display for so long that at this point it's kind of just stating the obvious.

You really are a reactionary thinker. ANYTIME someone you deem unworthy thinks something you AUTOMATICALLY refuse to think that is an acceptable position to hold, and you BROWBEAT others with the same bullshit you've launched against me.

MY point stands.

Anyways, I've refused to engage with you until today, and I'm pretty sure I'll refuse to engage with you in the future very much because it's just not worth it. Others do a very good job of bringing you to task when you deserve it.

With that said, I HAVE recommended some of your diaries in the past when I have thought them worthy, and I'm sure I'll recommend more in the future. You do bring some good things to the table around here, but your purely reactionary and divisive thinking really needs to be pointed out whenever you engage in it. It does no good.

[ProSense]

70. Delusional and

"You really are a reactionary thinker. ANYTIME someone you deem unworthy thinks something you AUTOMATICALLY refuse to think that is an acceptable position to hold, and you BROWBEAT others with the same bullshit you've launched against me."

...hypocritical. Like I said: If you can't fucking take it, don't fucking dish it out.

[stillwaiting]

72. I can fucking take it. I'm already over it.

To my mind calling someone a racist apologist is pretty beneath the pail.

Calling someone reactionary and robotic in their thinking might not be polite, but it's nowhere in the same league as to what you did/do to others when you equate them with racists.

I'm curious if you even understand that your thinking is reactionary.

Anyways, let's both make this country a more progressive place. That is what the goal is, right?

[ProSense]

73. Obviously, you're not, and your initial comment was "beneath the pail"

Don't dish it if you can't take it. Period.

[stillwaiting]

74. Stop giving me this advice. I'll dish it whenever I feel like it.

You certainly do. Many, many times around here.

I will dish it out WHEN IT IS DESERVED, and you deserve it. Often.

[ProSense]

75. Yes,

Stop giving me this advice. I'll dish it whenever I feel like it.

You certainly do. Many, many times around here.

I will dish it out WHEN IT IS DESERVED, and you deserve it. Often

...I do, and always in response to personal attacks like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023307278#post63

You can't take it. You jump in with a personal attack. Then pretend that you're the victim, disingenuously trying to claim that you're doing it because I do it. That's projecting.

[stillwaiting]

76. Your posting history is LITTERED with personal attacks on this website.

Mine. Is not.

I WILL continue to point out reactionary thinking though. It's not intelligent, and it's not productive to progress.

When you attack others it often is accompanied with a junior-high-esque -->

Mocking and ridiculing others around here is par for the course for you.

I'm done "attacking" you today. So, I'll let you carry on mocking and ridiculing other DU members now. It seems to be your job most days. I don't stoop to that level very often. If calling you a reactionary and robotic thinker was doing so, then today is one of the rare occasions when I have stooped to that level.

However, when Rand Paul and Ron Paul share the political opinions that some of us hold around here (civil liberties and drug laws come to mind) that DOES NOT make us racist or racist apologists. That is so incredibly over the top and unfair that it really shouldn't be allowed around here because those ARE liberal/progressive values. The fact those assholes share them might be the only redeeming qualities they possess.

[ProSense]

77. Hey

Your posting history is LITTERED with personal attacks on this website.

Mine. Is not.

I WILL continue to point out reactionary thinking though. It's not intelligent, and it's not productive to progress.

When you attack others it often is accompanied with a junior-high-esque -->

Mocking and ridiculing others around here is par for the course for you.

...self-defense is allowed, and again, this isn't about what you perceive. You launched a personal attack: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023307278#post63

You are now trying to play the victim using all sorts of bogus excuses and whining.

"Mocking and ridiculing" and personal attacks are "par for the course": http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023087676

I'll defend myself, always.

You don't get to play victim after launching a personal attack.

Again, if you can't fucking take it, don't dish it out.

Time to stop whining.

[stillwaiting]

78. You really think you get to tell people what they get to do or not do, don't you?

You are too much. Your ego is simply monstrous.

Even when I state what I think about you, I never presume to tell you what you CAN or CAN NOT do.

Are you twelve? Seriously. It might explain your reactionary thinking as well.

[ProSense]

79. I really

You really think you get to tell people what they get to do or not do, don't you?

You are too much. Your ego is simply monstrous.

Even when I state what I think about you, I never presume to tell you what you CAN or CAN NOT do.

Are you twelve? Seriously. It might explain your reactionary thinking as well.

...don't give a shit what you do.

Again, if you can't fucking take it, don't fucking dish it out.

Take that however you want to.

[stillwaiting]

80. I can take it, and I can dish it out. Thanks for giving me permission!! nt

[Progressive dog]

8. A former CIA officer said that Snowden isn't a traitor!!!

Come home Eddie, you've only been charged with theft of government property and unauthorized communication of national defense information, and the "former CIA officer" says you're not a traitor (straw man Mr. CIA?). CIA guy from Paulville does say

Snowden has undeniably violated his agreement to protect classified information, which is a crime.

That might be the same as unauthorized communication of national defense information.

[KoKo]

9. This is a Good Read...a little more snip that debunks "aiding enemy"

Attempts to stretch the treason argument still further by claiming that Snowden has provided classified information to Russia and China are equally wrong-headed, as the U.S. has full and normally friendly diplomatic relations with both Moscow and Beijing. Both are major trading partners. Washington is not at war with either nation and never has been apart from a brief and limited intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1918. Nor is there any evidence that Snowden passed any material directly to either country’s government or that he has any connection to their intelligence services.

Then there is the broader “national security” argument. It goes something like this: Washington will no longer be able to spy on enemies and competitors in the world because Snowden has revealed the sources and methods used by the NSA to do so. Everyone will change their methods of communication, and the United States will be both blind and clueless. Well, one might argue that the White House has been clueless for at least 12 years, but the fact is that the technology and techniques employed by NSA are not exactly secret. Any reasonably well educated telecommunications engineer can tell you exactly what is being done, which means the Russians, Chinese, British, Germans, Israelis, and just about everyone else who has an interest is fully aware of what the capabilities of the United States are in a technical sense. This is why they change their diplomatic and military communications codes on a regular basis and why their civilian telecommunications systems have software that detects hacking by organizations like NSA.

Foreign nations also know that what distinguishes the NSA telecommunications interception program is the enormous scale of the dedicated resources in terms of computers and personnel, which permit real time accessing of billions of pieces of information. NSA also benefits from the ability to tie into communications hubs located in the continental United States or that are indirectly accessible, permitting the U.S. government to acquire streams of data directly. The intelligence community is also able to obtain both private data and backdoor access to information through internet, social networking, and computer software companies, the largest of which are American. Anyone interested in more detail on how the NSA operates and what it is capable of should read Jim Bamford’s excellent books on the subject.

[cantbeserious]

10. Thank You For Sharing - The Desecration Of The 4th Amendment Must Be Stopped

eom

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

12. THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE?!

Wow.

[marions ghost]

19. The article posted was picked up by Business Insider:

These are pretty amazing statements coming from conservatives:

"It was clear to me that in 2007 Washington already possessed the technical capability to greatly increase its interception of communications networks, but I was wrong in my belief that the government had actually been somewhat restrained by legal and privacy concerns. Operating widely in a permissive extralegal environment had already started six years before, shortly after 9/11, under the auspices of the Patriot Act and the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

The White House’s colossal data mining operation has now been exposed by Edward Snowden, and the American people have discovered that they have been scrutinized by Washington far beyond any level that they would have imagined possible. Many foreign nations have also now realized that the scope of U.S. spying exceeds any reasonable standard of behavior, so much so that if there are any bombshells remaining in the documents taken by Snowden they would most likely relate to the specific targets of overseas espionage.

Here in the United States, it remains to be seen whether anyone actually cares enough to do something about the illegal activity while being bombarded with the false claims that the out of control surveillance program “has kept us safe.” It is interesting to observe in passing that the revelations derived from Snowden’s whistleblowing strongly suggest that the hippies and other counter-culture types who, back in the 1960s, protested that the government could not be trusted actually had it right all along."

http://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-not-a-traitor-2013-7

-----------
So the business sector is seeing the downside of the NSA spying for them.

When they say "the hippies were right" ya gotta wonder what is going on here

So this article is relevant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. The Daily Telegraph?!

Wow.

See #34. Your name is also on the list of recommenders of a anti-Snowden article from a conservative source.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

50. Are you collecting our DU metadata?

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. DU3 is about openness - so we can see your hypocrisy (nt)

[morningfog]

71. DU collects your DU metadata, lol. Just to be clear, conservative sources are okay

as long as they support your view? Is that it?

[shawn703]

14. Wrong

"Enemies" aren't limited only to those that we've declared war on. Nice try though.

[frylock]

16. do "enemies" also include "trade partners?"

[shawn703]

31. Sometimes they do. eom

[rhett o rick]

15. The more publicity Snowden gets, the more the message of freedom and liberty get discussed.

Thanks to the haters for their cooperation in giving Snowden so much exposure.

[marions ghost]

20. !

right

[msanthrope]

17. Oh good! Another thread about Snowden to remind us that this isn't about Snowden.nt

[morningfog]

23. How long has it been since someone opposing the government's actions and

supporting Snowden's release of the policies asserted that it is not about Snowden?

There are many critical issues being discussed here, with some overlap.

The NSA policies is one. That is not about Snowden.

The US aggressive efforts to catch Snowden and the pressure put on other countries is another. That one is arguably, still not about Snowden.

Then, there is the fallout and consequences of the information released, how it impacts possible changes in policy, how the NSA may have to adjust, how those seeking to stay off the radar have to react and how future whistleblowers may act. That is not about Snowden.

The efforts of Snowden seeking asylum and his motives to release more information. That is about Snowden.

Snowden's resume, past history and his former girlfriend are about Snowden.

I know this is complicated, but I think you can understand, there are lots of "its" here. And even the "its" that mention Snowden are not necessarily about Snowden at all. And, even if a portion or all of "it" is about Snowden, so what? You need more nuance to your canned response, or you just look silly, petty and reactive.

[DirkGently]

18. KNR

[snappyturtle]

22. K&R nt

[xtraxritical]

24. Where is he?

[liberal N proud]

28. So we are quoting conservative sources on DU now?

And everyone is flocking to support it?

What has happened to DEMOCRATIC Underground?

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Oh really? I will point out the results of the alert on the OP:

At Sun Jul 21, 2013, 11:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

FORMER CIA OFFICER: Edward Snowden Is No Traitor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023307278

REASON FOR ALERT:

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>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Democratic Underground is no place for Right-Wing news sources. Help get this off our DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 21, 2013, 11:39 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Inappropriate sources.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Censorship is wrong, m'kay? Business Insider is not NaturalNews or Stormfront. Get a grip!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I think this forum is for liberals to discuss their opinions, even though we might not agree on some things, but overall we are cordial to one another most of the tine. I believe right - wings have the right
To post their opinions, but not with all the vitriol and lies. Show facts to keep the debate going



Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Meh. Anti-Snowden DUers use right wing sources too - eg http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023296127 . I notice that ProSense, the first person to leap into this thread objecting to the source, recommended that other one - as did, for the record:
Galraedia AllINeedIsCoffee Tikki ProSense Andy823 liberal N proud Wait Wut Scurrilous NoPasaran SidDithers Tarheel_Dem flamingdem UTUSN jeff47 BklnDem75 Zoeisright AverageJoe90 DFLforever sagat CakeGrrl Pirate Smile Cha Number23 Major Hogwash sheshe2 treestar Bobbie Jo Jamaal510
Are you among those, alerter?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No. If you have a problem with the content, explain why. Should be easy to do if the source is not credible.

Yeah, you were one of the people who recommended an anti-Snowden OP that came from a conservative source. So don't play the holier-than-thou card in this thread.

[liberal N proud]

38. the jury system is joke

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. This is about you recommending an OP from a conservative source

and then hypocritically criticising an OP for using a conservative source.

[liberal N proud]

43. Nope, get your snooping straight, didn't recommended the OP!

Must be some other user you have a bone with.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. You recommended the Daily Telegraph anti-Snowden article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10023296127&info=1#recs

I gave the list of people who recommended that right wing link in my comment in the alert - you, ProSense, and AllINeedIsCoffee all recommended it, and then turn up in this thread to whine about people using right wing sources. You are all hypocrites. In fact, all the replies to the OP that complain about the source come from that band who recommended the right wing Telegraph article.

[liberal N proud]

53. Regardless, using conservative sources on DU just isn't exactly DU material.

It's not what we do. If you want credibility, find a source that isn't conservative propaganda.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. Then why did you recommend a conservative source?

That's why your 'credibility' was destroyed before this thread had started - you had already recommended a conservative source.b It is what you, personally, do.

[liberal N proud]

61. You just earned a coveted spot on my ignore list for being so obnoxious

Good bye!

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. So you have no explanation for your hypocrisy

Given your attitude in this thread, it doesn't surprise me.

[Mojorabbit]

47. I love juror number 5 nt

[marions ghost]

35. We would be stupid to ignore the business sector in this whole NSA debate

Business Insider is a U.S. business and technology news website launched in February 2009 and based in New York City. Founded by DoubleClick Founder and former C.E.O. Kevin P. Ryan, it is the overarching brand in which Silicon Alley Insider (launched May 16, 2007) and Clusterstock (launched March 20, 2008) verticals fall beneath.[2]

The site provides and analyzes business news and acts as an aggregator of top news stories from around the web. Its original works are sometimes cited by other, larger, publications such as The New York Times[3] and domestic news outlets like National Public Radio.[4] The online newsroom currently employs a staff of 50, and the site reported a profit for the first time ever in the 4th quarter of 2010.[5] In June 2012 it had 5.4 million unique visitors.[6]

Business Insider hosts industry conferences including IGNITION],[7] which explores the emerging business models of digital media. In January 2012, Business Insider launched BI Intelligence,[8] a subscription research service that provides data and analysis of the mobile industry. The site each year publishes editorial franchises such as the "Digital 100: The World's Most Valuable Private Tech Companies". (Wiki)


--------The NSA scandal has touched all segments of America. You can't live in a bubble. The source is conservative but not some extremist right wing blog. If you want to understand the whole issue, it makes sense to look at all segments directly affected.

[11 Bravo]

29. OP could just as easily be titled: FORMER CIA OFFICER: Edward Snowden is a Criminal ...

based on statements attributed to the man in the article.

[Blanks]

51. Former CIA officer praises hippies. eom

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. knr

[WillyT]

37. K & R !!!

[Oilwellian]

39. I love the end

It is interesting to observe in passing that the revelations derived from Snowden’s whistleblowing strongly suggest that the hippies and other counter-culture types who, back in the 1960s, protested that the government could not be trusted actually had it right all along.

[burnodo]

40. But that goes against the partisan narrative!!

Doesn't he know that??????

[jazzimov]

49. Seriously?

You are SERIOUSLY posting an article in a Business rag that's from a Conservative site quoting a Paulbot?

[99th_Monkey]

52. Proud 65th Rec ~nt

[Laelth]

54. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[DontTreadOnMe]

55. Paulbots, American Conservative and Faux News... all support the traitor Snowden

Just ponder that for a minute... I thought the authoritarians were the Conservatives.

This is entire Snowden episode is all about being anti-government.

I am surprised so many here on DU are so easily distracted... but then again -- home of the free and the brave, distraction is like apple pie!

[indepat]

56. The United States has not been in a war declared by the Congress since the end of WWII.

And it would seem one could not give aid and comfort to the enemy (in a war declared by Congress) unless one had first adhered to that enemy. Otherwise, the Cheney-type chickenshit chickhawks could aver that the even most innocous act or word by a political enemy were treason. What holistic fuc*tards devoid of any redeeming quality imo.

[Puzzledtraveller]

65. K&R

[Catherina]

67. Good read. Thank you n/t