Mocking the President after his speech on NSA reforms and declaring Snowden a "hero"

[ProSense]

It appears that these are attempts to create the impression that Snowden did a great service and the charges should be dropped.

If he fled U.S. tyranny and is now safe in Russia, why are his supporters asking the President to drop the charges? Does he want to come back to the U.S., even before anything changes?

If Snowden's case is so strong in the minds of his supporters, why doesn't he just return and face the consequences?

The reality is that Snowden doesn't have the support of the major of people. They see the NSA debate sparked by his actions as useful, but I don't think most people approve of the way he handled the situation. Fleeing the country and releasing state secrets did not help his case.

Heroes don't steal documents, flee the country and release U.S. state secrets to other countries.

MLK: Letter from a Birmingham Jail

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

President Obama:

So the fact is, is that Mr. Snowden has been charged with three felonies. If, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case. If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community -- for the first time. So there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023436454

"Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290

[Kahuna]

1. Eddie crossed the line when he leaked our international spy programs..

that all other countries also have, btw. He has damaged our international relationships and that by definition is treason.

[ProSense]

3. Yup, I

"Eddie crossed the line when he leaked our international spy programs.."

...asked a question about this comment...

Justin Amash: Snowden "may be doing things overseas that we’d find problematic...dangerous"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023421649

Guess what happened?

[former9thward]

19. You have a very personal definition of treason.

But its not a legal one. Pick up a copy of the Constitution some time. It defines it. And nothing Snowden did is remotely close.

[zeemike]

48. All you have to do is re define the words.

If you want to show someone is a traitor, you define things as broadly as possible so that almost anything can be used to show he is.

But if spying comes up, you define it very narrowly....like it must be in a closet with a tap on your phone or it does not fit the definition...

It is like a system being used to manipulate people and public opinion.

[deurbano]

59. That is a very good way to put it.

[cthulu2016]

20. Knowing what treason is might have helped the post make sense.

Or maybe not.

Either way, you really don't know what treason is.

[Kahuna]

98. Stealing our secrets and giving them to the international community is treason.

I don't care what you think.

[alarimer]

123. Authoritarian bullshit

What we are doing should be a violation of international law. It should certainly be unconstitutional. I consider revealing those things to be a service to all.

[idwiyo]

23. Do you mean he inflicted a lot of damage to Mr Obama's public image overseas?

It was already suffering from refusal to prosecute torturers and war criminals, escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, drone attacks, etc. Snowden's revelations just added one more detail to already tarnished image. Majority of the damage was done by Obama to himself long before Snowden was even in the picture.

[pnwmom]

46. He did much more than that. He hampered ongoing negotiations Obama was having

with both the Chinese and the Russians by leaking information about our spying just as we were negotiating.

This had nothing to do with US internal surveillance. For some reason Greenwald/Assange must have talked him into releasing information on foreign intelligence, too. And that is where Snowden crossed the line.

[MarkLaw]

73. So what. That isn't a valid concern in 2013 U.S.A.

The violations agaisnt American citizens concern us.

Allowing the outsourcing of our labor or providing safe haven for crminal financiers who would have otherwised faced long jail terms, the list of wrongs is endless.

Spying is a new low, a new Unsuprising low. It is unconstitutional and must end.

We only need a huge security apparatus because we constantly invade and destroy peoples homes.

The solution seems rather obvious. Keep D.C. focused on the American people.

That would solve your diplomatic problem as well.

[pnwmom]

79. The Chinese have been stealing billions of dollars worth of intellectual property each year,

which has a real effect on American jobs.

You claim to be worried about outsourcing our labor and yet you think it's fine if they steal our product research, and that it's fine if Snowden interferes with our ongoing negotiations about this.

[MarkLaw]

117. The sale of consumer products in China, economically speaking, has no effect on the American worker.

The ones that are buying counterfeit are largely poor. If the only choice was to buy something through the legal channels, they would either forgo the sale altogether or buy something locally produced instead.

NOW lets talk money$$$$

Companies that provide jobs in America are able to avoid paying their fair share of taxes creating a huge tax deficit. Because of this American workers are forced to attempt to fill in the black hole. Wages have decreased. Workers/families that are largely bringing in less than 50,000 are forced to fund D.C. without any help from the billionaires profiting from the usage of American labor and RESOURCES.

This huge deficit has overtime amounted to trillions of debt. American laborers are forced to pay the interest.

And all the while our energy, educational, social infrastructure have received TRICKLES of support from D.C..

Who is the enemy? The corporations dropping billions of dollars into D.C. using lobbyists or the legislators that accept the lobbying dollars?

[pnwmom]

119. It does when they sell those products outside China, which they do. n/t

[MarkLaw]

120. POOR PEOPLE BUY IT. They can't afford American made products through legal channels.

Basically your saying SCREW the poor, they don't deserve any TECH.

[pnwmom]

124. China shouldn't be stealing it and Snowden shouldn't be helping them

by interfering in ongoing negotiations over these issues.

[MarkLaw]

126. You are repeating personal assumptions, using lies and obfuscation to sell your hate for a patriot.

Your original point is dead. American taxpayers aren't affected slightly by Chinese knockoffs since only POOR people buy those knockoffs. If you make that a regulated market you will find those POOR people no longer making those purchases, hence no sale of a regulated product. The only people who are going to be hurt by a crackdown, with I.P. laws being the guiding factor, are the poor people.

You pretend to care about employment levels in one of your posts above. Fine, honorable concern. What about a federal works program, FUNDED BY CORPORATIONS/BANKS that currently enjoy a tax free ride?

Ethically speaking, defined by its constitution, the government should only be subsidizing the citizens. Right now most of our wealth goes to arms dealers and healthcare companies.

Why not use that money to fund a public university system so we can train the brain we need domestically!?

SNOWDEN had a duty as an American to let citizens know the government was out of line. The government now has a duty to act according the the wishes of the American voter, and the constitution, yo end its practice of collecting every bit of digital data a person produces.

[pnwmom]

127. Snowden had no duty as an American to leak information about US spying on China, Russia,

or anywhere else in the world. His only duty was to keep that information confidential, as he was sworn to do.

This is an entirely separate issue from his claims about US internal surveillance -- which it can be argued could fall under the category of whistleblowing.

[MarkLaw]

128. He had a duty as a human being. We aren't hated because of Snowden, but because we SPY!

He couldn't possibly have redacted the evidence he supplied. He wouldn't have been able to prove his claim of Domestic spying. Americans would never have learned.

[pnwmom]

131. Have you ever studied any history? We didn't invent spying, and all the major countries of the world

engage in it.

He could have proved his claim of domestic spying without leaking details of our spying on China or Russia. And he could have easily redacted things like the names of Chinese IP addresses. You don't give him much credit.

[MarkLaw]

132. Yes I know, and unfortunately we remain in a divisive and antagonistic stage of our history.

Global power brokers are making hundreds of billions of dollars stealing resources and swindling the taxpayer. Nothings new.

He couldn't have used documentation with a black hole to make a claim like this. And he didn't have that responsibility .

NO MATTER WHAT OATH HE TOOK, it became null and void as soon as he understood his employer was violating the constitution.

Too bad D.C. doesn't see things this way, we might have a better economy and be SAFER if they had.

[pnwmom]

133. You don't understand. He didn't have to use documentation with a black hole.

The power point presentation that he used for showing the US internal surveillance was an entirely separate document drop than the leaks he made to the Chinese newspaper about our hacking into China. He didn't have to share these additional documents that didn't do anything to prove his point about US internal surveillance.

The oath he took didn't ever become VOID in general. It applies to each document SEPARATELY. Just because he felt that he needed to come forward and break his oath about the power point presentation (or any other document that proved US internal surveillance) did NOT mean he could ignore his oath about any other document. There is nothing unconstitutional about the NSA or the CIA spying on other countries. Those documents didn't involve unsuspecting people in the US having conversations with people in China -- they were only about spying on China. And that is why people like John Lewis don't regard him as a hero. He crossed a critical line into actively trying to harm US interests when he decided not to restrict himself to whistle blowing on US internal surveillance.

[MarkLaw]

134. Yes he did. You can't make a claim that momentous then say oops some of the proof is blacked out.

Doesn't work like that. Fox news would have labelled him a conspiracy nut that had a secret to hide.

The oath he took CERTAINLY became null and void once he realized his employer was violating the Constitution.

He also had a responsibility to protect his own life. If he had returned or been sent to the United States he could have been tortured or worse. Bradley Manning faced inhumane treatment while in custody of the American security apparatus, Snowden feared the same.

Instead of concerning yourself with vilifying a Patriot who wanted to make taxpayers aware of crimes committed against them, concern yourself with the fact that taxpayers have had their constitutional rights violated.

The patriot act and Ndaa have to go. The secret court has to go!

That's what matters now!

[pnwmom]

135. He wouldn't have had to block anything out -- they were separate documents in separate releases.

He had already released his power point presentation and related documents and gotten the full attention of Faux news and everyone else when he decided to share additional, separate documents related specifically to spying on China -- not on US internal surveillance.

The oath he took applies to each document separately and never became null and void in any general sense. Furthermore, each document would have contained a written reminder as to his obligation to maintain the secrecy of that individual document. He wouldn't get to release a document about the computers we've hacked in China just because he had previously released documents that he thought fell into the category of whistle-blowing about our internal surveillance.

When he crossed the line into sharing documents about our spying on other countries, he stopped being a patriot. And if the full attention of the media isn't exclusively on US internal surveillance, Snowden shares the blame for that. He was the one who took the focus off that issue by moving onto other revelations and promising more.

[MarkLaw]

138. He didn't take a zillion oaths. And no each document did not have any kind of reminder.

IT WAS A HUGE COLLECTION OF DATA! It was not separate and itemized like you are trying to manipulate people into believing.

His oath was void when his employer decided to become a CRIMINAL!

He was trapped in Hong Kong. Instead of of hailing his whistle blowing, D.C. was screaming for a lynching. The only way he could have made it out of the territory was to divulge information that would show China that D.C. couldn't be trusted to act in a judicially ethical manner.

Had China not understood the extent of our spying program, they would have extradited him. In America he would have been locked away, and D.C. would have made sure he stayed locked away.

He didn't cross any line. The government was violating the constitution. You can't possibly be accused of treason by a body THAT IS VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION. The government lost the privilege to play the good guy when they passed NDAA, Patriot Act and began VIOLATING OUR PRIVACY!

[pnwmom]

139. Each separate document carries with it its own requirement to protect secrecy. You don't like that,

but it's a fact. You can't say that because one top secret document may or may not have disclosed government wrongdoing, that you then are free to release any other top secret document that you manage to gain access to.

Of course China knew we were spying on them, just as we know the reverse. What they didn't know was what Snowden gave them -- useful details as to how exactly we were doing it. So they rewarded him for his betrayal by letting him escape to Russia -- which has also benefited from his revelations.

[MarkLaw]

140. He took one oath that became invalidated once his employer decided to VIOLATE THE CONSITUTION!!!!

He was not bound to nor did he take a zillion oaths.

His first revelation was that America was spying Domestically.

D.C. Called for his head, wanted him extradited. In order to avoid extradition, torture, and a biased legal system, he revealed more. IT KEPT HIS HEAD ON HIS SHOULDERS! Once America called for him to be extradited he had every duty to protect himself! If he would have been extradited WOULD BE WHISTLE BLOWERS WOULD BE TERRIFIED TO REVEAL OCCURRENCES OF CORRUPT UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT!

Which is really what this is all about. Snowden's freedom means people will feel safer revealing government crimes.

AND THAT SCARES THE HELL OUT OF D.C.

[pnwmom]

141. He didn't take a zillion oaths. But each of the top secret documents

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

that he downloaded carried with it its own separate requirement for protecting its secrecy. Just because one document may be covered under a whistle-blower statute doesn't mean EVERY top secret document is covered.

He had no duty to protect himself by harming US national security. Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you. I think his fear for his life is nothing but hyperbole -- unless he has done something much worse than anyone of us know.

[MarkLaw]

144. U.S. violated/Nullified any oaths with it's unconstitutional activities!

Every human being has a natural duty to protect their life, its built into our DNA.

He certainly had something to fear from D.C.! Just ask Bradley Manning! Ask the other prisoners being held by the U.S. but aren't being charged with anything!

Snowden had a reason to fear torture or abuse at the hands of the FED.

[blackspade]

85. That is pure supposition on your part.

Do you actually think that the Chinese and the Russians governments didn't know about our international spying?

And this has everything to do with US internal surveillance. That is what most of us are upset about.

[pnwmom]

103. No it isn't. The information Snowden gave them, including IP addresses, was quite specific.

We don't know all the avenues they use to hack us, so I'm sure they don't know everything we do to hack them back. And we didn't need Snowden to tell them.

I think people should very concerned about US internal surveillance. But I ALSO think people should be very concerned about what Snowden has shared, on purpose or inadvertently, about our spying on other countries. Greenwald himself has said that Snowden gave HIM information that would be extremely damaging if he revealed it; and Snowden has said that he had access to US "assets" (which includes our spies and their networks) around the world.

[idwiyo]

99. You seriously beleive Russia or China didnt know US was spying on them?

[pnwmom]

45. Yes. Though it might not meet a technical definition of treason,

releasing information about our spying was inexcusable, IMO.

[EVDebs]

65. We're not in any declared war, therefore no treason

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." Article 3 section 3

[MarkLaw]

75. Either way, he was a citizen aiding American citizens. We aren't clasified as an enemy.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

53. "He has damaged our international relationships and that by definition is treason." Actually, no.

Not unless you disregard the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3

You're welcome.

[Kahuna]

100. Shit! He's let Al Qaeda know what we're up to. TREASON..

You're welcome.

[hfojvt]

87. Eddie! Dang, that reminded me of an old Styx song

which is recorded badly here

"Eddie, now don't you run
you know, you're a bootlegger's son
and you saw just what it's done to the others"

"can we ignore the basic facts of history?
or deny what people say is destiny?"

dang, those guys were prophetic.

[SwampG8r]

122. actually no its not the definition of "treason" except in your mind nt

[shawn703]

129. Not treason

But it is espionage and he should still go away for a long long time because of it.

[Peacetrain]

2. I put this in another thread also

Take it to the bank.. there will be a book out in a couple of years.. and all the happenings going on behind the scenes with Snowden Greenwald The Guardian NSA The company Snowden worked for.. will come out. There will be no way to stop it.. this just has too many loose ends flying

[mpgalloway]

4. "Edward Snowden broke the law by releasing classified information. This isn't under debate"

Under authoritarian dictatorships very little is under debate.

However, Obmabots violating the constitution, looks like it's now under a lot of debate.

I have more respect for Edward Snowden now than ever.

He is a real hero, long may he live!

WE need a whole new generation of more whistle-blowers.

[ProSense]

6. Bruce Schneier = "Obmabots"?

"Under authoritarian dictatorships very little is under debate. "

Well, he'll be very happy in Russia.

[mindwalker_i]

54. The problem is that violating the constitution isn't under debate

And the people who think Snowden should come back and face his waterboarding like a man don't seem to care that the government is breaking the law, only that Snowden did. Breaking the law to show an even worse breaking of the law is the correct thing to do.

So the bankers get a slap for crashing the world economy, stealing housed from people, etc. but Snowden faces the full force of the law, as do pot smokers.

Faith does weird things to people, it seems.

[Duval]

62. Thank you, mindwalker. KR your post. n/t

[wildbilln864]

89. very well said! Thak you. n/t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

92. breaking the law - the privacy pirates

Or the whistle blower?

The one you are most worked up about is a litmus test.

[mindwalker_i]

97. Not quite sure I'm at the "worked up" stage yet

but I'm getting there

Technically, both are breaking the law. Snowden gave away classified information, the government violated the 4th amendment of the constitution.

Now, if I were to beat the shit out of someone who was trying to kidnap a child, I think there is a law that committing a lesser crime to prevent a worse crime is not only ok, but is mandatory. That puts Snowden in a good place.

Unfortunately I can't trust the "justice" system not to fuck him over.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

114. Can/should it ever be a crime to report a crime?

That's the proverbial 64 thousand dollar question.

Believe it or not, the SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on that question.

I think its time.

[Demo_Chris]

5. This assumes Mr Snowden will receive his constitutional due process...

Something that is highly questionable.

In any case, Obama deserves mockery for his speach on NSA reform. This is the same man who claims that as President he is gifted with the power to murder any American citizen he chooses, at his own discretion or whim, in secret, with zero oversight or judicial review. He has claimed the power once reserved for despotic kings.

[CakeGrrl]

7. Finding it 'questionable'

is a mild way of saying people are dancing to Snowden's own 'I might be killed' paranoid tune like marionettes, throwing that speculative excuse out there at every opportunity as the reason he should continue to duck responsibility for his lawbreaking.

[Demo_Chris]

16. Not at all, I am dancing to the tune our government is playing...

As for Snowden, I don't know or care what he is claiming.

[ProSense]

10. The only

"In any case, Obama deserves mockery for his speach on NSA reform. "

...people who believe that are those declaring Snowden a "hero." People who are interested in reforms focused on the proposals.

EFF analysis of NSA announcements: Devil's in the details.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439446

[Demo_Chris]

14. Obama calling for transparency and constitutional protections is like Bush calling for peace. nt

[ProSense]

18. Maybe the

"Obama calling for transparency and constitutional protections is like Bush calling for peace. "

...ACLU is delusional or Snowden fans are desperate.

"Thank You Mr. President – In Big Win for Privacy, Administration Issues CISPA Veto Threat!"

President Obama pushed back against NSA and Republicans on cybersecurity, citing privacy concerns
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023441222

[Demo_Chris]

21. Yes, and we now see what a farce that was. Or some of us do. nt

[ProSense]

22. Yeah, the Snowden fans who only care about his status as a "hero." n/t

[Demo_Chris]

29. Some have heroes who advance transparency and the rule of law. Others not so much.

[ProSense]

31. Some have heroes who steal documents and flee the country. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. So the President threatened to veto a bill he knew would never reach his desk...

That's ballsy.

[Demo_Chris]

37. Particularly when he knew he was already well beyond that anyway. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Too true. n/t

[ProSense]

40. Yeah, that's the only thing at the link, and

I guess all the demands that the President threaten to veto bills should be ignored.

Obama should threaten to veto the bill to show he isn't "ballsy"!!!

[uponit7771]

57. Doesn't every black person in the US have the same excuse as Snowden?! regards

[indepat]

8. But is it not heroic to expose secret governmental activities that violate the letter and spirit

of our most vital of constitutional protections? Should those who commit unconstitutional acts be punished in the same manner as Snowden should be punished?

[NorthCarolina]

47. That's the OLD 'USA' you're talking about, not the NEW 'USSA'

[idwiyo]

9. What is it about obsession with martyrdom that seems to be so important to you?

[ProSense]

12. So you prefer the "obsession" with declaring him a "hero"

I mean, some people will go to any lengths to equate Snowden with real heroes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023422546

We know how that episode ended: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290

[idwiyo]

28. You didn't answer my question about obsession with martyrdom.

[ProSense]

43. It's your straw man. Maybe you can answer it.

Snowden is a coward, and his actions didn't help his case. That's the reality.

[RC]

86. Yeah, cowards defy the United States government, when they find unconstitutional actions on the part

of said government.
The rest of us just abuse our keyboards.
Since Snowden worked for the government for almost like 10 years, he more than likely signed one or more oaths similar to this:

I, {name}, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

[hr]
Good reading:

The Oath to Defend the Constitution vs. the Forced Pledge to Protect Government Secrecy
http://whistleblowing.us/2012/03/the-oath-to-defend-the-constitution-vs-the-forced-pledge-to-protect-government-secrecy/

[idwiyo]

95. The 'martyrdom' stawman is your invention, hence the question why are you obsessed with it.

Last edited Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:50 AM - Edit history (2)

the rest of your post confirms your obsession.

[Maedhros]

51. As long as the forum is arguing back and forth over whether Snowden is a hero or traitor

the details of the NSA program and the Administration's involvement in it are being ignored.

Objective: achieved.

[cthulu2016]

11. Are there no limits? Such grotesque co-option is a disgrace to King's memory

[ProSense]

15. Please

"Are there no limits? Such grotesque co-option is a disgrace to King's memory"

...spare me the faux outrage and silly point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023422546

[cthulu2016]

30. As a wire-tap victim, MLK might not have been as enthused by your pro-NSA campaign

as you assume.

By dragging his memory into your war against the liberal half of the Democratic Party, you slander him.

He was a figure of the left you degrade and smearing every day.

[ProSense]

41. Do you think he would have been "enthused" by Snowden fleeing the country and

revealing state secrets?

[cthulu2016]

101. Well, he sure wouldn't have been particularly upset about it.

Do you imagine that MLK would have been on the anti-Ellsberg side on the Pentagon Papers, had he lived?

Do you really imagine MLK cheering on drone strikes and the NSA today?

[ProSense]

104. Ellsberg didn't flee the country.

"Well, he sure wouldn't have been particularly upset about it."

So you doubt the conviction of his statement?

"Do you really imagine MLK cheering on drone strikes and the NSA today?"

I doubt that, but I do know that his role wouldn't be the same as the President's.

King met often with LBJ and his goal was never mocking the President.

[woo me with science]

13. The speech on NSA "reforms" deserves derision.

Americans will not become "comfortable" with mass surveillance, no matter how slick the corporate messaging.

Snowden is a hero for exposing the bipartisan trashing of our Constitution by those who claim to represent us.

[Mojorabbit]

17. As of the first of the month

By TAL KOPAN | 8/1/13 10:52 AM EDT
As news broke Thursday that NSA leaker Edward Snowden was granted temporary asylum in Russia, a new poll shows that a majority of Americans view him as a whistleblower rather than a traitor.

Asked whether Snowden is more of a whistleblower or more of a traitor, those polled split 55 percent to 34 percent for whistleblower, according to a Quinnipiac survey released Thursday.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/edward-snowden-nsa-leak-poll-95054.html


While the administration certainly doesn’t believe Snowden is patriotic, Americans do. A Quinnipiac poll conducted this month found people agreed, 55 percent to 34 percent, that he is a whistleblower — a large margin that crossed party, gender and age lines. A recent Reuters poll showed only 31 percent of the public thought he should be prosecuted.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/edward-snowden-is-a-patriot-95421.html

[ProSense]

24. Poll: Americans Turn On Snowden, Majority Supports Criminal Charges

Poll: Americans Turn On Snowden, Majority Supports Criminal Charges

Amid reports that Edward Snowden has been granted permission to enter Russia, a poll released Wednesday found that American attitudes toward the National Security Agency leaker have shifted markedly in the last month.

The latest ABC News/Washington Post found that 53 percent of Americans are in favor of criminal charges being brought against Snowden, a jump from a poll in June that found a plurality of 48 percent opposed to charging the 30-year-old former government contractor with a crime.

Moreover, the latest ABC/WaPo survey found that 57 percent of Americans believe it's more important for the government to investigate potential terrorist threats than for it to protect privacy rights. Nearly half of Americans — 49 percent — said that Snowden's disclosures of top secret surveillance programs harmed national security either a "great deal" or "somewhat."

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/poll-americans-turn-on-snowden-majority-supports-criminal

[Mojorabbit]

26. I believe that is an old poll dear. The article is dated the 24th

The more people hear about the spying the less they like it is my guess. So for now you are in the minority and are defending unconscionable programs in what is left of our democracy.

[ProSense]

44. It's a different poll, specific to whether or not he should be prosecuted.

The poll you posted simply asked a black and white question: Whistleblower or Traitor?

[Mojorabbit]

105. And the answer to the poll is very telling.

When all this first came out all we had was the mainstream media making comments. It has gone way beyond that now and people are paying attention and they believe he is a whistle blower and not a traitor. Most of the Dems in the house voted to curb the NSA recently and hopefully next time around they will win. You were against NSA overreach when Bush was President. I would love to know why you are making a gazillion posts a day defending them now. I find it beyond the pale.

[mindwalker_i]

60. Stop confusing the issues with facts

Sheesh!

[kentuck]

25. Face the consequences?

For what? What are the charges?

[mindwalker_i]

56. He STOLE stuff from the govt.

Oh, the horrors. Nevermind that the govt. is stealing from us too. That's ok.

[kentuck]

80. We, the people, are the government. So he stole stuff from us?

I never felt violated.

[mindwalker_i]

93. That's actually an interesting point

I guess that yes, he did steal from us since we are the government. But extending that logic, if we are the government then the spied on ourselves. Unfortunately, we all then launched drone strikes across the world and are responsible for that. I guess that's the whole point here: the government should be representing us and I don't like us spying on us, and killing people indiscriminately, and stuff.

[dkf]

27. We are mocking his insistence that he welcomed the debate by showing the multitude of instances...

He choose to continue to hide it all rather than participate in a discussion.

Senator Ron Wyden has spent Obama's entire presidency giving this admin the opportunity to even join the debate as his former deputy chief of staff documents:

Really, Mr. President? Do you really expect me to believe that you give a damn about open debate and the democratic process? Because it seems to me if your Administration was really committed those things, your Administration wouldn't have blocked every effort to have an open debate on these issues each time the laws that your Administration claims authorizes these programs came up for reauthorization, which -- correct me if I am wrong -- is when the democratic process recommends as the ideal time for these debates.

For example, in June 2009, six months before Congress would have to vote to reauthorize Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which the Obama Administration claims gives the NSA the authority to collect records on basically every American citizen -- whether they have ever or will ever come in contact with a terrorist -- Senators Wyden, Feingold and Durbin sent Attorney General Eric Holder a classified letter "requesting the declassification of information which [they] argued was critical for a productive debate on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act."

In November 2009, they sent an unclassified letter reiterating the request, stating:
"The PATRIOT Act was passed in a rush after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Sunsets were attached to the Act's most controversial provisions, to permit better-informed, more deliberative consideration of them at a later time. Now is the time for that deliberative consideration, but informed discussion is not possible when most members of Congress - and nearly all of the American public - lack important information about the issue."

Did President Obama jump at the opportunity to embrace the democratic process and have an open debate then? No. Congress voted the following month to reauthorize the Patriot Act without debate.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

She cites example after example of all those missed chances that the Admin "welcomed".

This is the type of thing you celebrate and love coming from Obama?

[ProSense]

34. Wyden Statement on President Obama’s Proposed Reforms to the FISC and PATRIOT ACT

Wyden Statement on President Obama’s Proposed Reforms to the FISC and PATRIOT ACT
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023436039

No "mocking" there!

[dkf]

42. What does that have to do with anything?

Your responses are so odd.

[ProSense]

49. More than your previous comment. The OP is about mocking the President's proposals

You posted something completely irrelevant.

[dkf]

55. Because if you were paying attention you would know there is not much discussion on his proposals...

more discussion of his disingenuous assertion that he "welcomed" the debate.

His proposals have no meat on them yet and Talk is cheap. Lets see if he follows this up with any action because based on his past history you can't blame the skeptics.

[ProSense]

68. Oh,

"Because if you were paying attention you would know there is not much discussion on his proposals..."

...really? Do you suppose that's because Snowden fans are less interested in reforms than they are pushing his status as a "hero."

[dkf]

74. Well I've told you how I want to reform it all so if you are asking what we want/expect.

Other than that what is there to do but wait and see? He needs to produce.

[Waiting For Everyman]

32. The President told a big smarmy LIE on Friday.

Mocking is a polite response to a lie this offensive.

"What makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation," Obama said. "It's the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process."

Tell that to Ron Wyden, who is barred by law from telling his own Communications Director, or other Senators, or the public what his concerns are about Patriot Act, the NSA, and other security matters. And he is one of the very few who are even briefed on these things. OPEN DEBATE AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS? What the fuck ever.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130810/09240524136/jennifer-hoelzers-insiders-view-administrations-response-to-nsa-surveillance-leaks.shtml

[woo me with science]

116. [phone]

[cantbeserious]

35. Clearly You Are Still Lost In The Matrix Of Good Versus Evil And Right Versus Wrong

It's All An Illusion To Keep Us Agitated And Divided While The Oligarchs And Corporations Make Money At Our Distress.

I hope you find your way out. Until then all the best.

http://billstclair.com/matrix/ar01s02.html

Snip ...

So then, what is it? Well, that's complicated. Much like in the movie, it's nearly impossible to convey the size and scope of the Matrix to someone who doesn't already see it for what it is. However, unlike the movie, I believe it is an ethical imperative to try to convey it in a literal sense, even to those who are so dependent upon the Matrix that they would fight to protect it. At worst, they won't understand or believe and will continue on about their business. In a sense, I believe Cypher was right to resent Morpheus for what he did, because Morpheus engaged in flat out trickery and deception to free people.

But I digress. The Matrix is the social structure that subordinates Humanity to its will. It is the machinery of society that exists solely to perpetuate itself, its influence, and its power independent of any human need. It insulates us from each other and ourselves through deception, and essentially transforms us into servile engines of economic and political output (power). The machines that live off this power are institutions: large corporations, governments, schools, religious institutions, and even non-profit orgs. Every institution will reach a point in its existence where its primary function becomes self-preservation and perpetuation, instead of serving human need. At this point it becomes a machine of the Matrix. For example, when they become machines, governments cease to serve people and instead seek to extend their power over them; corporations prioritize increasing shareholder value over producing quality products or otherwise serving the public good; schools view students as a means and not an end; religious organizations equate membership with salvation (and actively oppose other teachings and even independent practice); and non-profits and charities spend more budget on fund raising activity than on their original focus. Inevitably all large institutions eventually become machines. They become too big for Humanity.

In addition to the independent self-perpetuating machines that write most of our paychecks, the Matrix has several major cooperative and more actively sinister groups of machines subsisting off of its power and directly contributing to the structure of the Matrix itself. These groups are the Military Industrial Complex, the Political Industrial Complex, the Prison Industrial Complex, the Surveillance Industrial Complex, the Media Industrial Complex, the Academic Industrial Complex, the Agricultural Industrial Complex, the Medical Industrial Complex and the major religious organizations (not to be confused with actual religions, many religious organizatons have abandoned the underlying principles of the religions they claim to represent). All machines in these groups either actively oppress humanity, or enable the oppression to persist. It is through their combined efforts that the Matrix takes on some of its more distasteful qualities.

Snip ...

[Skip Intro]

36. Snowden blew a corner of the tent up, and we all got a peek

at some sinister stuff. Just a peek, mind you.

"...other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions." - ROFL! I'm sure Obama himself would have had a look at Snowden's concerns had they gone through the proper channels. What a joke.

[Maedhros]

58. "...other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred

and thought that they needed to question government actions."

TRANSLATION:

He should have come to us, quietly, without riling up the teeming masses. We could have gently assured him that everything was all right, erased the evidence and swept this all under the rug with the American citizens none the wiser.

[Rex]

38. He made his bed when he fled to China.

And I don't get that impression at all. Snowden is a traitor, doesn't matter how many people want to worship him. He fled and gave away secrets to the enemy.

No wiggle room in that, he fled and that was it.

[ZombieHorde]

50. No one is a hero.

"Hero" is something we project onto others, just like good, evil, slut, prude, etc.

If Snowden's case is so strong in the minds of his supporters, why doesn't he just return and face the consequences?

Because many people have no faith in the US Justice system. I know I don't.

MLK's tactics were very good for what he was doing, but those same tactics won't work for Snowden.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

52. Republicans have us where they want us over this NSA/Snowden thing

[Mojorabbit]

63. No, we can take ownership of it anytime and come out against it

A lot of Dems did in the vote in the house recently. More need to do so.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. Hopefully

[Blue State Bandit]

61. Snowden ≠ Manning.

Right or wrong, Manning's harsh treatment was due to the fact that he was a uniform service member in a time of war and in military custody. He faces the Uniform Code, not federal charges.

Snowden is a US citizen (for how much longer is ambiguous), afforded the right to due process in a civilian court. He chose not to avail himself of this, and fled, data in toe, to a country with which we have been fighting a cyber-cold war with for nearly a decade.

Bradley Manning stood up, did not abandon his post. He paid, and will continue to pay a heavy price for his actions. I am ashamed of how he has been treated, and hope he does win his freedom.

Snowden was halfway around the world, trading secrets for protection (hacking the HK hub/EU involvement) before anybody even knew he was gone. Now he's got a job in Russia, where apparently, his Dad, (good for him) gets to come stay for a while.

Lucky for Eddie, he's not gay.

I hear ya on the hero worship around here.

[DeSwiss]

64. Speaking of violating laws:

- Why do ''some people'' get a pass?

[sulphurdunn]

66. Cui Bono

(who benefits). Putting aside all the arguments about being a hero or a traitor, I've been unable to figure Snowden's motive. What could he possibly hope to gain by pissing of the American ruling class? He must have know what he was going to lose his former life and possibly his life, period. The same is true for Bradley Manning. He had to know he would be crucified. It seems they had nothing to gain and everything to lose. They may be patriots or traitors or both. They may well be fools but they aren't greedy fools and they certainly aren't cowards.

[JaneyVee]

67. Kinda like how I like wikileaks but despise Julian Assange.

[JDPriestly]

69. When a US senator cannot speak aloud about problems he sees in a program

and when our justice system is so warped that a whistleblower does not have a fair chance, Snowden is in his rights to choose to go to a foreign country before making his revelations. He learned from the naive mistakes of others who blew the whistle believing that the Bush or Obama administrations would treat them as honest whistleblowers and not as criminals.

Wyden and others tried to tell the American people that there was a problem. Snowden's drastic action is the only one that has caused us to believe just how corrupt our government has become, just how far the government is going in disregarding our rights.

It's too bad that it came to this, but when Clapper lied to Congress, it became clear to me that Snowden used his best judgment.

Had he stayed here, his message would never have been heard by us.

Snowden is exercising his right to free speech on a public policy issue. I believe that his conduct is protected by the First Amendment.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

70. I just want to rec this before it disappears

from the front page. The InfoWars/BeforeItsNews/AboveTopSecret/VeteransToday crowd has been out in full force lately... I remember how that shit didn't fly under DU2... I've seen posts hidden for "insulting" other members that weren't even REMOTELY insults... The Pual-tards are sensitive wee creatures...

[EVDebs]

71. NSA if around in 1770's at about the time of the Revolution

...would have infiltrated and spied upon the boys in the Green Dragon Inn in Boston (Tea Party, masonic lodge headed by Paul Revere & Co) and we wouldn't have the republic nowadays the NSA seems to want to destroy.

[bravenak]

72. Not a hero.

He got used. And he's enjoying the attention.
He will be begging to come back here one day.
I dont think he thought his plan through.

[RetroLounge]

76. Cha-Ching

RL

[DevonRex]

109. Still throwing up, huh? A rational person would avoid things/people

that make them do that. Use ignore.

[RetroLounge]

118. Splooge

RL

[Purveyor]

77. I'm 'mocking' and 'declaring' without abandon, indeed! eom

[stupidicus]

78. nonsense, and a collection of silly questions

1. that he performed a valuable service to this country was the first observation myself and many others made. This of course sticks like the proverbial bone in the throat of those who vehemently denied any possibility of wrongdoing on the part of our angelic pres, given that all the evidence points to some.

2. even a schoolchild could understand why some want the charges dropped due to the aforementioned, as well as recognize the dramaqueenhood associated with the US v Russia comparison.

3. no matter how many different ways the BHObots post essentially the same "destroy the messenger" posts, we're still gonna be left with them being grossly wrong from the start on all of this, and left with nothing in their bag when things are changed but all those old "you racsits", etc, type turds to continue fondling.

4. There's likely at the very least, a correlation between how wrong they were from the start and how frequently they still post the "destroy the messenger/opposition" type posts.

[ProSense]

91. Points:

"1. that he performed a valuable service to this country was the first observation myself and many others made."

His actions overseas were damaging to his case and the country: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023439290

"2. even a schoolchild could understand why some want the charges dropped due to the aforementioned, as well as recognize the dramaqueenhood associated with the US v Russia comparison."

And a "schoolchild" can understnat that isn't going to happen.

"3. no matter how many different ways the BHObots post essentially the same "destroy the messenger" posts, we're still gonna be left with them being grossly wrong from the start on all of this, and left with nothing in their bag when things are changed but all those old "you racsits", etc, type turds to continue fondling."

May I quote you: "nonsense, and a collection of silly" points and name calling.

"4. There's likely at the very least, a correlation between how wrong they were from the start and how frequently they still post the 'destroy the messenger/opposition" type posts."

Wrong? Greenwald and Snowden still lack credibility.

[stupidicus]

121. meaningless garbage/points

1. his revelations can't be damaged, they are damaging. Spare me your blue-link specials, since they rarely serve as rebuttal material, and are largely geared towards dodging/changing the subject. I thought that was established over a year ago now during the chained cpi debate, where similarly angelic BHO was clean according to the bots. That's exactly what you linking to your BS here is -- again. It has been quite nice to see so many others noticing that particular game you play. WHat you apparently can't seem to understand (unsurprisingly) is that we give what the revelations have provided -- discussion and subsequent action -- far more weight than whatever imagined or even "real" (that not still "secret" that is) alleged damage he's done to national security, etc, because of the damage and/or potential for damage to our cherished rights these programs have caused.

2. whether the charges are dropped or not has nothing to do with the preference/desire that they be, other than serving as one of two possible outcomes. It's doubtful that a schoolchild could understand all the issues sufficiently to come to anything more than and either/or and uneducated choice as to what BHO will do in terms of dropping charges. On the other hand, there's nothing complex or difficult at all at all about understanding that if someone thinks someone did something "right", they shouldn't be punished for it. We obviously don't see him as the kinda "criminal" you do http://www.ibtimes.com/nsa-fisa-surveillance-did-snowden-actually-harm-national-security-1376189 , and we certainly don't need him as a subject-changing tool to avoid the role and responsibility of the current president in all of this.

3. BHObots is definitely namecalling, but it's not even remotely comparable to the "racist", etc, charges your kind have leveled around here. WHy would someone like you who strives so strenuously to achieve that designation find it insulting would be the question to be answered. Unlike the "racist", etc charge, there's an easily demonstratable foundation for it as well -- as most of the posters on this board know and understand. You showcase/illustrate it with almost every OP/response you post around here. ANd it's certainly far less insulting than a dedicated lefty like me being referred to as a "Paulite" for example.

4. another dodge doesn't help your case or address the substance on that remark. You've been wrong from the beginning on this issue with your insistence that BHO shoulders no or a bare minimum of the burden on this, given it's been within his power to have "the debate" he welcomes ONLY after having it forced upon him, either by allowing cases to proceed in court over 4th Amendment issues this BS impinges upon, or by curtailing the obscene and secret interpretations of Section 215, etc, from which the worst of the abuses flow.

QUite frankly it appears to me as if you either have a shallow knowledge base and understanding of the issues involved, or are clinging to denial of how much responsibility he owns in all of this.

As I noted the last time we locked horns on all of this, if and when repeal or revisions occur to thwart all the abuses, your days of playing blue-link special on this issue are over. His role and share of responsibility will be firmly and incontrovertibly established then, and you'll be on the wrong side of this issue -- as you've been on every major issue I've involved myself in since I've been here.

Isn't it about time you pulled out the "LOL" defense?

Go ahead. I'll amuse myself with it in the morning.

[blackspade]

81. Another post in search of a point.

We get it, you don't like Snowden.
But you like Obama.....You've made that abundantly clear.

Here's a tip: Most of us that are concerned about the abridgement of out civil liberties, unconstitutional data collection, secret interpretations of law, and the gross lack of transparency don't really give a crap about Snowden.

Whatever 'damage' you think has been done is done. He will eventually end up in US custody and he will be put on trial. And you will likely get your pound of flesh and that warm fuzzy feeling that authoritarians get when an 'evil doer' gets crushed by the US 'justice' system.

Meanwhile, secrecy will likely continue, fear will be ratcheted up, criminal bankers will walk free, and official government leaks will go un-investigated. In other words a wonderland of happiness for you.

[ProSense]

94. Yeah,

"Here's a tip: Most of us that are concerned about the abridgement of out civil liberties, unconstitutional data collection, secret interpretations of law, and the gross lack of transparency don't really give a crap about Snowden. "

...right!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023437089#post183
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023437089

[blackspade]

130. This is the part of the statement I was responding too:

They forced a public discussion about the anti-Constitutional practices of the NSA and the government. Now that Obama is trying to clean up, it's clear that 1) the American government IS extra-Constitutionally spying on its own citizens, and 2) the "already widely known actions" were NOT known prior to Snowden. That, of course, is why he's been so vociferously attacked by the Dem establishment types. They wanted to discredit him in order to protect the sanctimony of the State.

Perhaps I should have been more specific.....
But, enjoy your internet stalker moment anyway!

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

84. "The reality is that Snowden doesn't have the support of the MAJOR of people."

U said it.

[Thinkingabout]

88. Snowden was informed giving out information on the operation he was involved with would result

In charges of espionage. By the time he was 29 he should have known stealing was not proper, I guess his conscience did not kick in and tell him stealing was wrong.

[cali]

90. 300+ ops just about Snowden, just from one poster.

there's a word for that.

[ProSense]

96. Counting OPs again or did you pull that number out of thin air? Here

count these: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=152034&sub=trans

...and tell me if "there's a word for that."

[cali]

106. lol. stings you. that's clear.

too bad for you, pro old pro, that it doesn't bother me even a wee bit how many times you post that link

I'll have to post more often about your thing for Edward.

pro.

[ProSense]

110. No, who am I to get in the way of your livelihood: counting OPs

[madinmaryland]

113. No. Robert Gibbs likes to post on DU!!

[bvar22]

102. Because everything the US Government has done so far...

... has ONLY made things WORSE.

The Info is GONE.
The Horses are Out of the Barn.
Chasing Snowden around the Globe like a pack of Keystone Kops has the WORLD laughing at our Super Power IMPOTENCE & HYPOCRISY.

The Very Best Thing the US Government, including President Obama,
could have done From-the-Beginning was to:

*Realize the ALL their precious secrets were GONE,
and the damage has ALREADY been done.

*Quietly Walk Away and never mention Snowden again.

*Reassess the need to SPY on everybody and everything in light of the now exposed FACT and Hard Lesson that you can NOT keep secrets when 1.5 MILLION people have a key to the vault.

*Radically and PUBLICLY downsize our Security/Surveillance/Police State Apparatus with an humble apology to every American Citizen, and an apology to The World for our Arrogance.
...because ANYTHING else they do WILL only make things worse.


The US Government, with direct assistance from people like the OP & Friends have made Snowden an International HERO, and the US Government and the Obama Administration and International Joke.
Nobody else did.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS[/font]

[cali]

107. bwahahahahaha. If posted about issues more than 1 in every 100 ops

you might be more convincing that you actually care about anything beyond idolizing and demonizing.

[Vattel]

108. Sometimes heroes do evade the law. Kinda obvious actually.

Some revolutionaries are heroes, but they certainly just don't accept the legal penalties for their revolutionary activities. Those who operated the underground railroad in the old south broke the law covertly and evaded the penalties. They were heroes too.

[bowens43]

111. 'why are his supporters asking the President to drop the charges? '

because the charges are nothing more then revenge by an administration that blatantly violated the civil rights of all Americans and got caught. Now in order to cover his crimes and hide his embarrassment he persecuting yet another whistle blower.

do you really think that youre nonsense is changing minds? Seriously, give it up. You look way desperate.

[phleshdef]

115. Oh right, its not against the law to steal classified documents and run off to China/Russia...

...with them and start disclosing. That's not illegal at all right?

Whether you like it or not, the NSA programs are legal. I don't approve of them, but they are. You'll just have to deal with that.

And whether you like it or not, Snowden is a criminal. That's why he was charged. You'll just have to deal with that as well.

[msongs]

112. it is highly unlikely that MLK would be supporting Obama's international wars nt

[Life Long Dem]

125. Keyword, "unjust"

One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

I wonder why Snowden ran?

[Babel_17]

136. "If he fled U.S. tyranny ..."

You're attempting to frame this debate so as to have an advantage. The US doesn't have to be a tyranny in order to need whistle-blowers.

MLK was up against public trials and he had a chance of winning if prosecuted.

Leaking and whistle-blowing are different, especially in today's world with today's secret laws and claims of national security that trump transparency.

The reality is that Snowden doesn't have the support of the major of people.

An interesting assertion, polling is a funny business, try asking people about specific over-reaches and if they approve of them being exposed.

[ljm2002]

137. I understand the argument about facing the consequences...

...but there are some salient differences between the two situations.

Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement were fighting specific laws, so they chose to be arrested rather than obey those unjust laws. The issues were clearcut and the laws were enforced openly.

In Snowden's case, he is arguing against secret laws that he believes are unconstitutional or are applied unconstitutionally. The issues are not as clearcut and the laws are interpreted and enforced secretly.

I just don't see how Snowden would have been able to make all of this known while following the same tactics of the Civil Rights era. The only way to make all of this known was to release the information he had. He could have released the information and then been arrested, sure; but that would not have made the case stronger, unlike the heroes of the Civil Rights era, whose arrests under unjust laws pricked the conscience of the nation.

JMNSHO.

[Waiting For Everyman]

142. Oh, my! The OP got locked out of her thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023446817#post83

Gee, that's

And

But most of all...

[MineralMan]

143. What does Martin Luther King, Jr. Know?